Subject: Who dies in 7?

[kiricat4001]

No: HPFGUIDX 146350

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at y...> wrote:
> Tonks here:
> 
> Well let's look at who Harry cares about the most.
> 
> Ginny
> Ron
> Hermione
> Hagrid
> Molly
> Arthur
> Lupin
> McGonagall
> 
> Any and all on this list could be a goner by the end.
> 
> At least one Weasley, maybe more will have to go.

Marianne:
Oh, yes.  I think a slew of Weasleys could be offed, if for no other 
reason than that JKR has said that one has to be ruthles when 
writing these books. I think Charlie could easily be collateral 
damage simply because we've only had peripheral contact with him - 
just enough to have a sense of who he is, but not enough to become 
attached to him.  But, of course his death would resonate throughout 
the Weasley family, so he's good cannon fodder.  I can see one of 
the twins being knocked off, too.

Tonks: 
> The person killed off early could be McGonagall. That would throw 
> the school into a spin again. And I think that McGonagall has 
> knowledge about DD and Snape that will be lost by her death.
 She may 
> be the only other one to know the truth about Snape and what side 
he 
> is on and why. This way Snape will have to contact Harry himself. 

Marianne:
Really?  McGonagall seemed as shocked as anyone in the Hospital 
scene when Harry tells what he perceives of Snape's betrayal.  I 
don't think she was privy to any discussions between DD and Snape. 
Nor do I think she was privy to whatever reason DD had for accepting 
Snape's story of remorse and trusting him to have renounced the DEs 
once and for all. I think DD, for whatever reason, handled Snape 
exclusively on his own, and now it's going to bite everyone in the 
butt. If McGonagall knew something, even if it was a secret, I think 
she would have immediately stopped the speculation during the 
Hospital scene about how traitorous Snape was.  She could easily 
have done so without explaining herself.
 
Tonks: 
> My guess is that this is going to be bad, really, really bad. It is
> a "war" after all. We have to put Harry in a very bad place 
> emotionally. So maybe all of his friends will have to die. 
Somehow, 
> Harry will be all alone. Harry will be suffering a great deal of 
> grief
 unbearable grief.

Marianne:

I don't think Harry is destined to fight through all of this alone. 
Harry is already dealing with grief. Which is not to say that some 
others close to him might die, but to slaughter everyone around him 
seems a bit like overkill to me.

Tonks: 
> There are others options too: Let's say that Harry is going to 
live. 
> In that case Ron and Hermione will have to die.  If Harry is the 
one 
> to die, maybe Ginny will go with him. This is keeping the shipping 
> together.  I don't know if we have to do that, but if there is to 
be 
> a happy ending I think that somehow Ron and Hermione and Harry and 
> Ginny have to end up together on the same side of the veil. 

Marianne:
I don't know - it seems too constructed for me.  I'm not sure I 
understand your either/or position that if Harry lives, Ron and 
Hermione must die. Nor do I understand why the ships must stay 
together, ie, if Harry lives, then of course Ginny lives, too.  Why 
couldn't one half of each couple die?  
 
Tonks:
> Bad guys dying:
> Draco - This would cause the Malfoys to possible change sides. We
> would see sister against sister. And what will happen to Lucius?
> He is too rich of a character to let disappear in Azkaban.  Maybe 
we 
> will see that he really does have some "feeling" for his son.  
> Certainly the death of Draco would give a lot of fuel to some 
> serious action on the Dark side. 

Marianne:
Well, boo-hoo for the Malfoys.  Sorry, but if Draco dies, I'll have 
a hard time mustering a whole lot of sympathy for poor, bereaved 
Narcissa and Lucius. These are people who had not the slightest 
sympathy or empathy that we've seen for other families who have lost 
loved ones to Voldemort's deprivations. If their son buys the farm 
in Book 7 and that suddenly causes the two of them to grow 
consciences, I can't say I'd welcome them with open arms to the side 
of good. 

Tonks:
> Snape, of course will have to die at some point in the book.

Marianne: 
<fervently prays> Please, please, please...

Tonks:
> All in all as death goes, I think that JKR will have to (sad to 
> say), top what she has done up to now. That means that book 7 will 
> be worse (emotionally) for all of us than any other book up to 
now. 
> And it will have to be far worse for poor Harry. Whether he ends 
up 
> alive or dead in the end, it is going to be a soul wrenching 
> experience for us all, and Harry most of all. But somehow, 
someway, 
> she will, by the grace of God, bring it all to a good end. 

Marianne:
I wonder if she will not somehow leave an opening for evil to 
survive. Not that I want that - some of my comments above to the 
contrary.  But, it seems to me that one thing JKR has hinted at is 
that good and evil are locked in a continuous struggle.  DD gets rid 
of Grindewald. And, lo and behold, Tom Riddle shows up and morphs 
into Voldemort.  

Harry may very well defeat Vmort in some fashion.  But, that does 
not wipe evil from the world.  How would people feel if, in the 
final confrontation, Vmort as we know him is obviously defeated 
either by his actual death or by a negation of his power, but 
somehow JKR leaves the door open to another growth of evil in years 
to come?   Let's say Pettigrew helps Harry defeat Vmort, but escapes 
his own justice, and, when he disappears, there is some hint that 
he's carrying knowledge or power or some other talisman that 
indicates he could come back in ten or twenty or fifty years as a 
new threat?  Would people find that an unsatisfying ending? Or would 
they see it as an acknowledgement that evil exists, and, as long as 
there are humans inhabiting the earth, it will continue to exist...

Marianne
All Hail the Captain, #11, New York Rangers