Character Given A Reprieve

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 175404

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, SnapesSlytherin at ... wrote:
>
> 
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm upset with JKR about 
how she portrayed the character who got a reprieve.? It sounded to me 
as though she meant a character who was supposed to die *in the last 
book* would not die after all.? JKR said that Arthur Weasley was 
supposed to die in OoP -- how did he get a reprieve in DH?? I think 
that she was really misleading (possibly deliberately misleading...) 
in order to confuse the fans.
> 
> IMNSVHO (in my not so very humble opinion lol), it does not count 
as a book seven reprieve if Arthur received it in book five.


Hickengruendler:

Here is what she said. 

"Jo: The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed 
very slightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two 
die that I didn't intend to die ...

Judy: Two much loved ones?

Jo: Well, you know. A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure 
evil. They don't target the extras do they? They go for the main 
characters, or I do."

>From here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0626-ch4-
richardandjudy.html

So she was talking about the final chapter and how she had to change 
it somewhat, because of the reprieve. I'm not sure if she meant 
chapter 36 or the epilogue (probably the epilogue), but Arthur is 
mentioned in both. She did not say, that the character reprieve was 
specifically from book 7.