Deaths in the Series

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 192181



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote:
>
> Another post made me think about a general question for discussion: the 
> many deaths in the Harry Potter series, onstage and offstage.
> 
> Doing this with numbered questions (like the listelves)....
> 
> 1) JKR had a knack for getting you to care about a character,...
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think it is that JKR get US to care about various characters, I think it is that she gets Harry to care. If Harry cares, then we care, and when the character dies, we feel a sense of loss in sympathy with Harry. 

I thought early on that Hedwig might die, and I feared that would be devastating to both myself and Harry. But, it happened so quick and among so many other distractions, that there wasn't time to care about the loss of Hedwig. 

Certainly, the books did a great job with Dobby's death. That was a very heart wrenching scene. The movies moved through too quickly and with poor directing for my taste. 

> 2) Some deaths were pretty much required for the plot to go on
> .... Some were a little more subtle. What were some of the deaths
> you considered to be necessary for the story...?
> 

bboyminn:

I think Fred's death was devastating to everyone in the story, and as such equally devastating for me. My heart really ached for the character having to experience that loss. But, that said, I can understand it. War is hell, people die, even good people die. Was does not discriminate. So, I feel this was a horrible death and a waste in the context of war, but I also feel it was a necessary death. 

I think he considered killing Mr. Weasley, but changed her mind. I don't think she originally intended to kill Fred, but it became necessary to convey the emotional impact of war. 

I don't think JRK wasted lives, I think all who died needed to die for the story. Dumbledore, Sirius, and Remus needed to die to leave Harry alone and on his own. Snape needed to die in order to reveal important truth to Harry. Dobby and Fred for shear emotional impact. 

But, it is important who lived as well. The Weasley family are mostly intact and are able to take on the role of Harry'serogate family, until such time as Harry actually becomes family by marrying Ginny. I think that was a wise and necessary choice. 

I also think Hagrid living was important, though a great many fear he might die. 

> 3) And, of course, because people do die in wars, some of the
> deaths were pretty much gratuitous. But it can be argued that 
> JKR went overboard in some cases, killing characters just for 
> the sake of adding to the death tolls. Which character's death 
> do you consider to be the most gratuitous....
> 

bboyminn:

I don't see any truly gratuitous deaths, though the story could have played out fine either way had Remus/Tonks died or not died. But JKR was going for a contrast. Harry's parents died in his generation, and his life was not that good as a result of it. In the next generation, we have another orphan whose parent have died. Harry survives his upbringing because he is TREMENDOUSLY RESILIENT. Teddy Lupin, who unlike Harry, has a tremendous support network allowing him to grow up happy and health. While Harry is pretty well adjusted, I think there will always be a small cloud of darkness hanging over him as a result of his upbringing and the trauma of his years at Hogwarts. Teddy, thanks in part to Harry, will have no such cloud. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn