[HPforGrownups] Re: Deaths in the Series

[Scott Smith]

I think I'll take a shot at this...
 
> 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)?

Z: Dobby, because he was pure innocence.

> 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)?
 
Z:
I think Cedric's death was necessary. The ministry's interference
would have hard to justify with two witnesses.  And the Harry/Cho
interaction would not have happened.

> 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?).
 
Z:
Dobby and Tonks, and didn't a Patil die?  The Patils were window
dressing for the most part.  Dobby still accomplished his rescue. 
And Tonks - I just loved the fun loving character.

One thing that bothered me was the lack of Weasleys (except George,
or was it Fred... I can never keep them straight) dying.  Think
about, Bill an Charlie had to be strong magic users, the twins would
probably be easily distracted trying to be clever, Arther and Percy
were pencil pushers, two students and a middle aged housewife.  Nine
of them and only one death?  What are the odds.

 
-Z

"I haven't read Gone With The Wind" by Louis L'Amore