What's With All The Bloodlust?

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 167038

I wouldn't characterize it as blood lust either, except in a few self
admitted cases. Every reader has their own idea of what would be a
strong, fitting ending to the series. For some that involves a heroic
death. Many (my sister in law is one) feel that Harry's death would be
a bold, brave move by the author. Others seem to think that happily
ever after is too hackneyed. But truly any conclusion these days
involves walking over ground that is littered with the bleached bones
of other author's work. It would be difficult indeed to come up with
any ending that hasn't already been used to the point of hackneyism.
There is nothing bold or brave these days about killing off the main
character in the final battle. There is no happily ever after in the
Potterverse. Its flaws guarantee that a surviving Harry will have
enough heartache mixed with his joy to make him look on the
possibility of his death in the final battle with some longing for
that which never was. I don't see that realism, literary convention,
or the ultimate judgment of the story's value demand that Harry live
or die. I think we all hope that there will be a good ending, whatever
Harry's fate.

I think that the notion, which the author herself raised, that killing
Harry kills any possibility of sequels, authorized or not, is just
silly. Any future author who wants to hijack the Potterverse badly
enough will find a way to to that, and to resurrect Harry if need be.
Duncan Idaho's poor soul never could find rest in the Dune series. The
living always found him too useful to stay dead. The author may *say*
that dead is dead in the Potterverse but she herself cheats this
dictum in every possible way. I expect that DH will reveal yet another
way in which dead is not really dead entirely. I suspect, like many,
that the final battle will take place in some realm that is neither
death nor life, a realm where both Sirius and Dumbledore can operate
as Harry's allies. That is why they "had" to die.

I think that part of the apparent "blood lust" is just the joy of some
who think they have decoded all the hints and have determined that
Harry will die. It's not all joy over Harry's death, it is the joy of
prising out the secret. I don't share their confidence in this, I
think the clues are contradictory. All the clues to anything important
in the conclusion are contradictory. Like Carol I read those dinner
party invitations as indicating that Harry lives, not dies. For once
the author seemed to have slipped up and revealed something there. But
 were those comments made before or after she decided to kill two who
were supposed to have lived? 

The series' place in history depends not on Harry's fate but on
whether the conclusion is deemed a good one. A good conclusion
guarantees that we will remember and cherish the work for a long time.
A living Harry could as easily be part of a good conclusion as a dead
Harry.

Ken