Deaths in the Series

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 192164

> Bart
> 1) JKR had a knack for getting you to care about a character, then 
> killing the character off (most blatantly with Cedric, but certainly 
> with others). Which character's death upset you the most (and why)?
> 
> Sherry:
> Sirius Black. I loved Sirius from the first moment we met him in POA, and I
> knew he wasn't a murderer from the beginning. I desperately wanted Harry to
> have a parental figure who was all his, not the Weasleys, not Dumbledore,
> but someone who was his parental figure. To this day, when I reread OOTP, I
> stop when the kids go to the ministry. I cannot read of Sirius dying.

Alla:

Me too, I mean, I actually have not reread OOP in more than two years and do not really want to :). Sirius Black's death is not the only reason why I do not really want to, but it is certainly an important one.


> 
> Bart
> 2) Some deaths were pretty much required for the plot to go on (most 
> notably, the death of Harry Potter's parents). Some were a little more 
> subtle. What were some of the deaths you considered to be necessary for 
> the story (and, of course, why)?
> 
> Sherry:
> Dumbledore. In the typical way of such books, the wise old mentor had to die
> so that Harry could go on and finish his task without guidance. Also maybe
> Snape. I don't like Snape, but I have to say that his life was full of
> sorrow, and he spent years being trusted by none as a spy. I think his death
> was necessary, because for one thing, it really showed, almost more than
> anything else, the depravity of Voldemort. Also because, of course, he had
> to give Harry the memories.

Alla:
Actually, while I said what I said above about Sirius' death, I think in JKR's story Sirius' death was necessary too. I think it was necessary for the same reason as Dumbledore's death was - no support and any help for Harry from adults, no parental affection, no nothing. Those are the laws of this genre, which JKR's claims to the contrary, I do not think she is subverted. Because of course it is possible to put a kid on the center stage and still leave adults there in some kind of role. Hunger games anyone? Avatar anyone? Although see below for another comparison with those books.

> 
> Bart
> 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 (and, most importantly, why?).
> 
> 
> Sherry
> Fred Weasley. That was horrible, and to me totally unnecessary. Why kill
> Fred? If she thought she had to kill a Weasley, why not someone like
> Charlie, a Weasley we didn't know very well. Taking Fred from George was
> just awful and cruel.
> 
> I also thought the death of Tonks was unnecessary, and since we didn't get
> to see any of Teddy's life, the supposed reason being that it is like Harry
> and that Teddy could grow up quite differently, doesn't really matter.

Alla:

I did not think any death was gratuitous, if nothing else but to show the randomness of people dying in wars. Could she make this point with fewer deaths? Of course. But to me that does not mean that it was gratuitous if that makes sense.

Again, Hunger games anyone? In comparison to Susan Collins, JKR is a fairy tale godmother lol. Definitely one learns everything in comparison, but yeah, I would call the author of Hunger Games quite merciless (good for her lol), JKR? Not anymore. I am not getting involved with the fandom of Hunger games, god forbid, but I certainly read a lot of reviews and spoilers before I mustered the courage to read those books and everybody around me was singing them praises


Sherry: 
> Thanks for bringing up this topic Bart!

Alla:

And from me as well :)