[the_old_crowd] Re: Only TWO Die? No, wait...

[susiequsie23]

David wrote:
<<<I think JKR's comment about 'hate mail' if she reveals who her
> targets are is weird.>> >

and Pip!Squeak responded:
<<It does suggests the deaths include sympathetic characters, and
> probably at least one of the kids.>>

Phyllis:
> Based on my reading of the transcript and viewing of the video, I
> saw the 'hate mail' comment as being in response to a question about
> *Harry's* fate specifically.  I thought it was a bit of a slip, for
> who is going to send her hate mail if she announces that Harry
> survives?  But perhaps this is her way of getting us ready for the
> inevitable.  ::Sniff::

SSSusan:
I've not listened to the actual interview, but I admit this was my take, 
too -- that she's "priming" us.  She's *always* maintained that Harry dying 
is a definite possibility, but somehow this felt more of a "Things are 
leaning that way" kind of thing.


Phyllis:
> My local paper seems to have done a Rita Skeeter and taken her "two
> die that she didn't intend to die" to mean there will be only two
> deaths in the last book.  But her statement doesn't necessarily mean
> there will only be two deaths in the last book (since she's said
> before that there will be more deaths before the series is over, I'm
> thinking this means there are two new ones added to the ones she
> already had planned).  And the answer was in the context of a
> question regarding the last chapter, so characters could die before
> then (ala Sirius and Dumbledore).
>
> Frankly, I'd surprised if it's only two, as I expected many more.

SSSusan:

Okay, Jo said this:
 >>>   "The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very
slightly. One character got a reprieve. But I have to say two die that I 
didn't intend to die,"  she
said. "A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They 
don't target extras do  they?
They go for the main characters. Well, I do."

SSSusan again:
I wonder if she means the final chapter of the *events* of book 7 or whether
she means the *real* final chapter, which she has stated before *will* be an
epilogue.  If she is saying that two characters she didn't intend to kill
off now will be *IN* that last chapter, then does she mean in her epilogue?
Then it could be anyone under any circumstances!  If she means in some final
battle between Good and Evil, between Harry & Co. and Voldy, in the final
chapter of year seven's action, then I think it makes it more likely it's
some people we really care about.  (Dare I suggest it?  Ron & Hermie?  The
twins?  Molly & Arthur?)

As for the character who gets a reprieve, a lot of people have speculated
that she means Snape.  I don't think so, though.  I think he's going to have
to pay some price for his "sins," whether that's dying or not I don't know.
But a "reprieve" almost sounds like she just flat-out changed her mind about
killing someone off, and I think her plans for Snape are SET.  How 'bout
Hagrid?  Could it be possible Jo decided she just couldn't bring herself to
do him in?

Also, does anybody else struggle with just what it is she's saying in the 
last couple of
sentences here?  It's *right* after she says two people she didn't
originally intend to kill off now have to die, that she says "A price has to
be paid.  We are dealing with pure evil."  Does she means she's killing off
two "bad" people who need punishment (Lucius & Narcissa? Lucius & Draco?)? 
Or
does she mean that the baddies are NOT going to leave all the goodies
undamaged?  That because they are evil, they WILL kill some of our
favorites?

I just don't follow the sequence of what she's saying there.  I wonder if
hearing the interview, rather than reading the quotes, would help my
understanding....

Siriusly Snapey Susan