Poor Fred :(

[jmwcfo]

No: HPFGUIDX 174191

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "greendayisawesome" 
<greendayisawesome at ...> wrote:
>
> The loss of Fred was the 
> thing that shocked me the most. Why not Bill or Charlie? Or 
> Percy. Why couldn't she kill one of them? 
> Sally


JW:
The short and direct answer is that if Bill, Charlie or Percy had 
bought the farm, you would not have cared.  JKR *WANTED* you to 
care.  JKR *WANTED* you shocked. She succeeded.


Here's a longer answer:
As Molly observed in OotP (the scene with her boggart at 12 GP) - 
there were nine Weasleys, half already in the order.  It was too much 
to hope that all would survive.

So who would fall?

My analysis:  Ginney, Arthur, Ron and Bill already came close; I saw 
no reason to bother them again.  As you observed, Charlie and Percy 
would not generate sufficient dramatic impact, so they were safe.

That left Molly and the twins.  The books lack solid parent-figures; 
hence, I doubted that JKR would kill off the strongest mother-figure 
of all.  That means Molly was safe.  Of the twins, Fred is the 
dominant while George is the subordinate.  The loss of Fred would 
maximize dramatic impact - it is more shocking when the strong die, 
leaving the weaker to survive as best they can.


Here's another observation relating to that scene in OotP:

It was Lupin who responded to Molly, comforting her by saying that 
should anything happen to her and Arthur, the Order would watch over 
the Weaslings to make sure they would not starve.  I did not predict 
the Lupin/Tonks marriage, but as soon as Mr./Mrs. Lupin had a baby, I 
recalled the OotP scene, and assumed the Lupins were goners - Lupin's 
promise in OotP would be kept, but not as he intended it.  Instead, 
it was Teddy Lupin who was cared for in the absence of his parents.