Discussion:
Who are the two you think will die... and WHY??
(too old to reply)
Troy
2006-07-02 18:21:30 UTC
Permalink
I think it will be:

Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way

Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
eggplant
2006-07-02 20:21:25 UTC
Permalink
I made the same mistake at first but when you read the entire interview
you realize many more than 2 major characters could die. JKR was
talking about the change's she made to the last chapter of book 7
that she originally wrote more than 15 years ago. She said 2 that she
had originally decided to let live will now die and one that she had
originally decided to kill will now live; we just don't know how many
others will bite the big one, for all we know it could be a blood bath.
These are my guesses:

Certain to live: Neville and Ginny.

Certain to die: Voldemort, Bellatrix, Wormtail, Percy, Snape, Ron or
Hermione but not both, and of course Harry.

All the other characters I would rate as uncertain, they might live
they might not.

I think it was Ginny who got the reprieve from death because she is
pregnant with Harry's child and JKR realized that someday she might
want to write about the adventures of Harry Potter junior. And why not,
by next book Harry will be of legal age, it's true that Ginny still
will not be but I'll bet if she had permission from her parents she
could marry and I'll bet she gets it.

Eggplant
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-04 20:52:35 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by eggplant
I made the same mistake at first but when you read the entire
interview you realize many more than 2 major characters could die.
JKR was talking about the change's she made to the last chapter of
book 7 that she originally wrote more than 15 years ago. She said
2 that she had originally decided to let live will now die and one
that she had originally decided to kill will now live;
And since she has only now decided whom the three affected characters
will be, it is utterly pointless to look in the books for clues. The
two that will die have been portrayed as certain survivors, and the one
that will be spared has been portrayed as a victim of the war. But even
that isn't certain, as too many of even the major characters have been
left deliberately (or so I believe) 'in the open'.

Let's just forget about this pointless discussion -- we'll learn soon
enough, and until then there is nothing but mindless name-calling to
the speculations.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
DaveD
2006-07-05 22:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
Post by eggplant
I made the same mistake at first but when you read the entire
interview you realize many more than 2 major characters could die.
JKR was talking about the change's she made to the last chapter of
book 7 that she originally wrote more than 15 years ago. She said
2 that she had originally decided to let live will now die and one
that she had originally decided to kill will now live;
And since she has only now decided whom the three affected characters
will be, it is utterly pointless to look in the books for clues.
Very good point - clearly there's not sufficient in the 6 books to date to
tell (unless you can do some pattern spotting, either from those books or
from particular styles of writing, though I think neither's very solid
evidence to be going on with).

BTW, I think I may have spotted a very minor error: Fudge is said to have
advised (well, "asked for permission from") the muggle prime minister that
he was importing 3 dragons. However, as one was a Welsh Green (and it seems
that at that stage they didn't know there'd be 4 champions) then they'd only
need to import 2 as the WG was already in the country (the prime minister in
the UK covers Wales and Scotland, as well as England).

DaveD
Kish
2006-07-05 22:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveD
BTW, I think I may have spotted a very minor error: Fudge is said to have
advised (well, "asked for permission from") the muggle prime minister that
he was importing 3 dragons. However, as one was a Welsh Green (and it seems
that at that stage they didn't know there'd be 4 champions) then they'd only
need to import 2 as the WG was already in the country (the prime minister in
the UK covers Wales and Scotland, as well as England).
The Welsh Green was probably the one brought on for the unexpected
fourth champion, specifically because it didn't need to be imported and
thus could be brought on shorter notice than the others.
Richard Eney
2006-07-06 03:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
Post by eggplant
I made the same mistake at first but when you read the entire
interview you realize many more than 2 major characters could die.
JKR was talking about the change's she made to the last chapter of
book 7 that she originally wrote more than 15 years ago. She said
2 that she had originally decided to let live will now die and one
that she had originally decided to kill will now live;
And since she has only now decided whom the three affected characters
will be, it is utterly pointless to look in the books for clues. The
two that will die have been portrayed as certain survivors, and the one
that will be spared has been portrayed as a victim of the war. But even
that isn't certain, as too many of even the major characters have been
left deliberately (or so I believe) 'in the open'.
Was it the last chapter, or just the general plan for the last book?
I thought it was just the book as a whole.

Going on that assumption I choose to disregard her hint that the deaths
are of main characters cause villains always go for the main characters.
I think they were all cannon fodder to begin with, or new characters
introduced for the purpose. There will be no clues in earlier books
either way.

By the way, very good authors have been known to change whether a
main character lived or died, even at the last minute, based on the
reactions of beta readers. Sometimes it's changed even _after_ the
book is in print (though in those cases it's usually a later reprint
with a different editor, and changed back to the author's preferred
version). I think Podkayne Of Mars wound up with three very different
endings.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Let's just forget about this pointless discussion -- we'll learn soon
enough, and until then there is nothing but mindless name-calling to
the speculations.
OTOH, disregarding her public pronouncements, it is still of some mild
interest to work out what could happen based on the books, even though
she will invent new loopholes or simply disregard canon if it is
inconvenient.

=Tamar
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-06 18:20:10 UTC
Permalink
[The infamous two deaths and a survivor]
Post by Richard Eney
Was it the last chapter, or just the general plan for the last
book? I thought it was just the book as a whole.
Yes, that was my impression as well -- the changes in who dies and who
lives obviously cause slight changes to the last (assumed epilogue-
ish) chapter. The cut-off is, I believe, the final defeat of Voldemort:
those who die will, at the very latest, die from wounds received in
that battle, the one to survive will be undamaged or will recover from
their wounds in due time.

All the characters will eventually die -- from old age, magical mishaps
or other battles that are to follow ("Harry died at the ripe age of
144, trying to bring the infamous Dark Witch Grendelpaws to justice"),
but that is not interesting. The context of death and life here must be
the struggle against Lord Voldemort specifically.
Post by Richard Eney
Going on that assumption I choose to disregard her hint that the
deaths are of main characters cause villains always go for the
main characters.
And Rowling seems to have a different appreciation of her own
characters than do the majority of her fans. I don't recall hearing
from any reader who shed tears over Cedric's death . . .
Post by Richard Eney
I think they were all cannon fodder to begin with, or new characters
introduced for the purpose.
Well, the point, according to the article, was that two will die who
she didn't intend to /and/ this has caused her to change the last
chapter.

Now, this can obviously mean several things, but I am going to assume
that the three people concerned have always been mentioned in the
epilogue, so that the changes are not from introducing them there, but
from changing their fate.

This doesn't necessarily mean that we've heard about them before -- one
or more of them might be characters that had always been planned to be
introduced in book seven.
Post by Richard Eney
There will be no clues in earlier books either way.
Most likely not. And if there are, they will point the wrong way!

If (and that is still not a given thing, IMO) any of the three
characters are 'old-timers', then all we can say about those who die is
that they are not foreshadowed to die, and the one who live is not
foreshadowed to live.

That gives two rather large groups (in particular since there are, IMO,
only very few characters that are foreshadowed either way -- Hagrid is
to die, I think [and so he may be the one who gets a reprieve]). The
whole exercise of pointing to one or the other is, IMHO, on par with
Trelawney's usual nonsense: an exercise in futile mindlessness.

That said, I'd like to see that the three involved were Ron, Hermione
and Ginny, but I doubt it ;-)
Post by Richard Eney
By the way, very good authors have been known to change whether a
main character lived or died,
Naturally -- inflexible adherence to plan is not exactly an artistic
virtue, is it ;-)

The main point is that it is done in a consistent manner -- and for
those in the mystery-type clue-laying tradition, the clues still have
to match up (that is, IMO, part of the unspoken contract with the
readers), but often enough that is not a real problem.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Let's just forget about this pointless discussion -- we'll learn
soon enough, and until then there is nothing but mindless
name-calling to the speculations.
OTOH, disregarding her public pronouncements, it is still of some
mild interest to work out what could happen based on the books,
even though she will invent new loopholes or simply disregard
canon if it is inconvenient.
Naturally. The discussion I meant was only with regards to the attempts
to guess the names of the three characters she referred to in that
interview -- that particular discussion is pointless and futile, IMO.

In general I don't think that we can really get anywhere with respect
to individual fates -- there aren't really any good clues with respect
to the remaining characters (Dumbledore's death was predictable,
although it came earlier than I had foreseen [others were better at
that foresight]). There are a few characters (e.g. Hagrid) for whom
arguments can be made in favour of their deaths, but I can't recall any
that would appear to me as foreshadowed survivors.

It's a different matter when it comes to more general events and theme-
resolution; there we might make some progress guessing what she's up
to, or at least what she has been foreshadowing -- I agree entirely
with what you say about her disregarding canon if it becomes
inconvenient (consistency of any kind is not her strong suit -- maths
is merely the area where it is easiest to spot and prove).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo
- /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
spiznet
2006-07-06 20:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Harry's mother and father will die in the final volume!!!
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-06 22:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by spiznet
Harry's mother and father will die in the final volume!!!
Well, I'd go with her not (up til now) intending for that to happen in
book 7 . . .
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
universally established as the amount of magic needed to
create one small white pigeon or three normal sized
billiard balls.
- /The Light Fantastic/ (Terry Pratchett)
Green-Eyed Chris
2006-07-07 10:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
[The infamous two deaths and a survivor]
Post by Richard Eney
Was it the last chapter, or just the general plan for the last
book? I thought it was just the book as a whole.
Yes, that was my impression as well -- the changes in who dies and who
lives obviously cause slight changes to the last (assumed epilogue-
those who die will, at the very latest, die from wounds received in
that battle, the one to survive will be undamaged or will recover from
their wounds in due time.
All the characters will eventually die -- from old age, magical mishaps
or other battles that are to follow ("Harry died at the ripe age of
144, trying to bring the infamous Dark Witch Grendelpaws to justice"),
but that is not interesting. The context of death and life here must be
the struggle against Lord Voldemort specifically.
Post by Richard Eney
Going on that assumption I choose to disregard her hint that the
deaths are of main characters cause villains always go for the
main characters.
And Rowling seems to have a different appreciation of her own
characters than do the majority of her fans. I don't recall hearing
from any reader who shed tears over Cedric's death . . .
Post by Richard Eney
I think they were all cannon fodder to begin with, or new characters
introduced for the purpose.
Well, the point, according to the article, was that two will die who
she didn't intend to /and/ this has caused her to change the last
chapter.
Now, this can obviously mean several things, but I am going to assume
that the three people concerned have always been mentioned in the
epilogue, so that the changes are not from introducing them there, but
from changing their fate.
This doesn't necessarily mean that we've heard about them before -- one
or more of them might be characters that had always been planned to be
introduced in book seven.
Post by Richard Eney
There will be no clues in earlier books either way.
Most likely not. And if there are, they will point the wrong way!
If (and that is still not a given thing, IMO) any of the three
characters are 'old-timers', then all we can say about those who die is
that they are not foreshadowed to die, and the one who live is not
foreshadowed to live.
That gives two rather large groups (in particular since there are, IMO,
only very few characters that are foreshadowed either way -- Hagrid is
to die, I think [and so he may be the one who gets a reprieve]). The
whole exercise of pointing to one or the other is, IMHO, on par with
Trelawney's usual nonsense: an exercise in futile mindlessness.
That said, I'd like to see that the three involved were Ron, Hermione
and Ginny, but I doubt it ;-)
Post by Richard Eney
By the way, very good authors have been known to change whether a
main character lived or died,
Naturally -- inflexible adherence to plan is not exactly an artistic
virtue, is it ;-)
The main point is that it is done in a consistent manner -- and for
those in the mystery-type clue-laying tradition, the clues still have
to match up (that is, IMO, part of the unspoken contract with the
readers), but often enough that is not a real problem.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Let's just forget about this pointless discussion -- we'll learn
soon enough, and until then there is nothing but mindless
name-calling to the speculations.
OTOH, disregarding her public pronouncements, it is still of some
mild interest to work out what could happen based on the books,
even though she will invent new loopholes or simply disregard
canon if it is inconvenient.
Naturally. The discussion I meant was only with regards to the attempts
to guess the names of the three characters she referred to in that
interview -- that particular discussion is pointless and futile, IMO.
In general I don't think that we can really get anywhere with respect
to individual fates -- there aren't really any good clues with respect
to the remaining characters (Dumbledore's death was predictable,
although it came earlier than I had foreseen [others were better at
that foresight]). There are a few characters (e.g. Hagrid) for whom
arguments can be made in favour of their deaths, but I can't recall any
that would appear to me as foreshadowed survivors.
It's a different matter when it comes to more general events and theme-
resolution; there we might make some progress guessing what she's up
to, or at least what she has been foreshadowing -- I agree entirely
with what you say about her disregarding canon if it becomes
inconvenient (consistency of any kind is not her strong suit -- maths
is merely the area where it is easiest to spot and prove).
I agree with the speculation regarding Hagrid, but I have two little
problems with it.

If Hagrid dies then I believe Grawp must also bite the dust, not that
anyone would really care. He can only become a burden if left behind.

Molly Weasley has been strongly written as a surrogate mother for Harry.
Two substitute father figures, DD and Sirius, have already been killed
off. Assuming that even a legal aged Harry needs a male figure he can turn
to, we are left with only Hagrid and the weakly written Arthur Weasley,
who is also on my short list. I believe that, in the end, at least one of
those two will have to survive.
--
Chris
Richard Eney
2006-07-07 12:36:01 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Post by Troels Forchhammer
[The infamous two deaths and a survivor]
That gives two rather large groups (in particular since there are, IMO,
only very few characters that are foreshadowed either way -- Hagrid is
to die, I think [and so he may be the one who gets a reprieve]). The
whole exercise of pointing to one or the other is, IMHO, on par with
Trelawney's usual nonsense: an exercise in futile mindlessness.
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
I agree with the speculation regarding Hagrid, but I have two little
problems with it.
If Hagrid dies then I believe Grawp must also bite the dust, not that
anyone would really care. He can only become a burden if left behind.
Agreed. That's one reason I think Hagrid will probably live, and
Grawp will probably die trying to protect Hermione.
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Molly Weasley has been strongly written as a surrogate mother for Harry.
Two substitute father figures, DD and Sirius, have already been killed
off. Assuming that even a legal aged Harry needs a male figure he can turn
to, we are left with only Hagrid and the weakly written Arthur Weasley,
who is also on my short list. I believe that, in the end, at least one of
those two will have to survive.
What about Lupin and Bill? Not to mention Charlie.
The main reason for at least one adult Weasley to survive is that
Ginny will still be underage.

=Tamar
Green-Eyed Chris
2006-07-07 13:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Post by Troels Forchhammer
[The infamous two deaths and a survivor]
That gives two rather large groups (in particular since there are, IMO,
only very few characters that are foreshadowed either way -- Hagrid is
to die, I think [and so he may be the one who gets a reprieve]). The
whole exercise of pointing to one or the other is, IMHO, on par with
Trelawney's usual nonsense: an exercise in futile mindlessness.
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
I agree with the speculation regarding Hagrid, but I have two little
problems with it.
If Hagrid dies then I believe Grawp must also bite the dust, not that
anyone would really care. He can only become a burden if left behind.
Agreed. That's one reason I think Hagrid will probably live, and
Grawp will probably die trying to protect Hermione.
Exactement! There was a reason that the only names he learned were Hagger
and Hermy.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Molly Weasley has been strongly written as a surrogate mother for Harry.
Two substitute father figures, DD and Sirius, have already been killed
off. Assuming that even a legal aged Harry needs a male figure he can turn
to, we are left with only Hagrid and the weakly written Arthur Weasley,
who is also on my short list. I believe that, in the end, at least one of
those two will have to survive.
What about Lupin and Bill? Not to mention Charlie.
I eliminate the first two for one reason. Nymphadora's (love that name)
hair is now vividest pink and Fleur does not deserve to be made the
youngest of widows. Kill either of the men and you have to kill off their
ladies as well. We don't know enough about Charlie to really care about
him. If I am to put my money on outsiders, I'll take Viktor. He is on good
terms with both HP and HG and we might be underestimating his proficiency
with the DA. He might bite it destroying a major Horcrux.
Post by Richard Eney
The main reason for at least one adult Weasley to survive is that
Ginny will still be underage.
LOL, don't tell me that you're going for the preggers angle! It will
suffice for them to be together at the end of the 7th year and kiss as the
sun sets.
--
Chris
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-07 23:58:18 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Hagrid is to die, I think [and so he may be the one who gets a
reprieve]).
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
I agree with the speculation regarding Hagrid, but I have two
little problems with it.
If Hagrid dies then I believe Grawp must also bite the dust, not
that anyone would really care. He can only become a burden if left
behind.
No problem there, IMO -- just kill them both off, no sweat and good
riddance . . .

Grawp is just a throwaway whose only purpose can be to redeem (in
death) the giants, and Hagrid is the at the absolute top of my death
list.
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Molly Weasley has been strongly written as a surrogate mother for Harry.
Right -- she gets on my nerves anyway, so let's blast her to the Other
Side as well . . .

(I'm afraid that I can't stand Molly's hen-mother type of mothering
Harry, and Harry's acceptance of it strikes me as wholly unrealistic in
a boy the age he has now.)
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Two substitute father figures, DD and Sirius, have already
been killed off. Assuming that even a legal aged Harry needs a
male figure he can turn to, we are left with only Hagrid and the
weakly written Arthur Weasley, who is also on my short list.
Who'd bother about Arthur, anyway ;-) Arther Weasley is in many ways
an interesting character (IMO), but as far as the fight against
Voldemort is concerned, he strikes me rather as an example of Adams'
'Mostly Harmless'.

Hagrid, however, has never been, and is incapable of becoming, a
father-figure. He is an older brother to Harry, but he is himself too
immature to act in the capacity of a father. If Harry is to survive to
need a father-figure, then Lupin is the only real possibility among the
characters that are presently available.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
DaveD
2006-07-08 09:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Hagrid is to die, I think [and so he may be the one who gets a
reprieve]).
<snip>
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
If Hagrid dies then I believe Grawp must also bite the dust, not
that anyone would really care. He can only become a burden if left
behind.
No problem there, IMO -- just kill them both off, no sweat and good
riddance . . .
My god but you're ruthless :-P
Post by Richard Eney
Grawp is just a throwaway whose only purpose can be to redeem (in
death) the giants, and Hagrid is the at the absolute top of my death
list.
And NOOOO! I like Hagrid - he may not be a good mature father figure, but he
does represent a solid presence for Harry, an anchor, in lieu of his
parents.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Molly Weasley has been strongly written as a surrogate mother for Harry.
Right -- she gets on my nerves anyway, so let's blast her to the Other
Side as well . . .
Eek!
Post by Richard Eney
(I'm afraid that I can't stand Molly's hen-mother type of mothering
Harry, and Harry's acceptance of it strikes me as wholly unrealistic in
a boy the age he has now.)
It would be if Molly was his mother - Harry'd hate it - but she's not, so he
puts up with it. The fact she's not his mother is what makes the
difference - he doesn't particularly like it but it's the nearest to any
mothering he's had since he was 1, and he likes her a lot so politely puts
up with it. Harry is a very polite boy :)
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Two substitute father figures, DD and Sirius, have already
been killed off. Assuming that even a legal aged Harry needs a
male figure he can turn to, we are left with only Hagrid and the
weakly written Arthur Weasley, who is also on my short list.
Who'd bother about Arthur, anyway ;-) Arther Weasley is in many ways
an interesting character (IMO), but as far as the fight against
Voldemort is concerned, he strikes me rather as an example of Adams'
'Mostly Harmless'.
Hagrid, however, has never been, and is incapable of becoming, a
father-figure. He is an older brother to Harry, but he is himself too
immature to act in the capacity of a father. If Harry is to survive to
need a father-figure, then Lupin is the only real possibility among the
characters that are presently available.
I'd say Lupin is more of a kindly uncle than father-figure. Much as I like
him, he's a bit more distant - mentors Harry rather than being totally in
the thick of his affections. But hopefully he'll survive to show that even
individual members of a group as derided as werewolves can be good (i.e.
don't stereotype - in this example, just because some are Fenrirs doesn't
mean they all are!)

DaveD
drusilla
2006-07-08 18:33:03 UTC
Permalink
If Harry is to survive to
Post by DaveD
Post by Troels Forchhammer
need a father-figure, then Lupin is the only real possibility among the
characters that are presently available.
I'd say Lupin is more of a kindly uncle than father-figure. Much as I like
him, he's a bit more distant - mentors Harry rather than being totally in
the thick of his affections. But hopefully he'll survive to show that even
individual members of a group as derided as werewolves can be good (i.e.
don't stereotype - in this example, just because some are Fenrirs doesn't
mean they all are!)
DaveD
Considering what happened to the other father-figures of Harry's
(including his REAL father) I doubt Lupin would like to take the post...
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-08 20:19:46 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by DaveD
Post by Troels Forchhammer
No problem there, IMO -- just kill them both off, no sweat and
good riddance . . .
My god but you're ruthless :-P
Precisely!

And he said, "Well, don't do it then." I thought, a
doctor you know . . . and I said "Well it just doesn't
work like that. You are writing children's books, you
need to be a ruthless killer.
[Jo Rowling, interview with Jeremy Paxman, 19 June 2003]
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3004000/3004878.stm>
Post by DaveD
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Grawp is just a throwaway whose only purpose can be to redeem (in
death) the giants, and Hagrid is the at the absolute top of my
death list.
And NOOOO! I like Hagrid
Well, /I/ like Hagrid, but that doesn't change my assessment. In a
purely Bayesian sense (Dave Varness would be thrilled <G>), Hagrid is
the one (of the good guys, obviously) that I consider having the
largest probability of dying.
Post by DaveD
- he may not be a good mature father figure, but he does
represent a solid presence for Harry, an anchor, in lieu
of his parents.
Bah! More often than not it is Harry who has to save Hagrid's neck,
when Hagrid has been acting the baby again. Correct what I said about
Hagrid being an big brother to Harry -- he's a big brother with some
kind of brain damage.
Post by DaveD
Post by Troels Forchhammer
(I'm afraid that I can't stand Molly's hen-mother type of
mothering Harry, and Harry's acceptance of it strikes me as
wholly unrealistic in a boy the age he has now.)
It would be if Molly was his mother - Harry'd hate it - but she's
not, so he puts up with it.
[...]

Out of politeness? Well, you might be right, though I don't think so --
if that was the case, we should have had more 'internal' resentment
from Harry; something in the narrative voice explaining his situation.

Actually I think that much of the emotional stuff is pretty badly
written. It works in context, certainly, and I am often teary-eyed when
I read the books, but it works not through subtlety or literary skill,
but through the application of brute force: a layer of cloying
sentimentalism that is so thick that it is, when viewed in a more sober
moment in retrospect, nearly nauseting.

That's the way Molly is written -- the Sledge of Sentimentalism, and
it's so bad that it doesn't even work for me in context; I just think
why Harry doesn't just tell her to back off . . .
Post by DaveD
Post by Troels Forchhammer
If Harry is to survive to need a father-figure, then Lupin
is the only real possibility among the characters that are
presently available.
I'd say Lupin is more of a kindly uncle than father-figure.
Yes -- he is not at the moment a father-figure, certainly. But as a
potential father figure, he is, IMO, the only likely candidate among
the current character-set (that is, someone like Moody might also work
out in the end, but that is much less likely, IMO).
Post by DaveD
Much as I like him, he's a bit more distant - mentors Harry
rather than being totally in the thick of his affections.
Yeah -- that adds to his survival chances ;-)
Post by DaveD
But hopefully he'll survive to show that even individual members
of a group as derided as werewolves can be good (i.e. don't
stereotype - in this example, just because some are Fenrirs
doesn't mean they all are!)
One of the things that I really like about Rowling's works is her
wonderful cynicism. She shows the kids that the world can be a very
cruel place, and that there is no way that we can take away all the bad
things. One of the aspects of this is that we find prejudice and
'a loathsome pecking order' even within the ostracised group of
wizards.

I don't think we should expect any revolution in the magical community:
house elfs, werewolves, goblins, Muggle-born and other down-trodden
groups will, at best, see marginal improvements. The message of the
books is, of course, that this is wrong, but also that this is how the
world works.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Leave this world a little better than you found it.
- Lord Robert Baden-Powell
Zolak of Twylo
2006-07-08 21:38:59 UTC
Permalink
On 2006-07-08 16:19:46 -0400, Troels Forchhammer
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by DaveD
It would be if Molly was his mother - Harry'd hate it - but she's
not, so he puts up with it.
[...]
Out of politeness? Well, you might be right, though I don't think so --
if that was the case, we should have had more 'internal' resentment
from Harry; something in the narrative voice explaining his situation.
Actually I think that much of the emotional stuff is pretty badly
written. It works in context, certainly, and I am often teary-eyed when
I read the books, but it works not through subtlety or literary skill,
but through the application of brute force: a layer of cloying
sentimentalism that is so thick that it is, when viewed in a more sober
moment in retrospect, nearly nauseting.
That's the way Molly is written -- the Sledge of Sentimentalism, and
it's so bad that it doesn't even work for me in context; I just think
why Harry doesn't just tell her to back off . . .
I don't really think that's it. Harry has been denied any type of
motherly affection
since he was 1 year old. I think deep inside, he really likes Molly's
attention.
Besides, he really digs her daughter.
--
Enjoy,

Zolak of Twylo
eggplant
2006-07-09 14:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Hagrid is the one (of the good guys, obviously)
that I consider having the largest probability of dying.
I disagree, I think Harry is far more likely to die than Hagrid, and as
a plot device it might be more effective to have Hagrid grieving over
Harry rather than the reverse. I also think it's more likely that Ron
or Hermione (but not both) will die. Percy and Snape will die too but
they are not good guys. The two I am most certain will live are Ginny
and Neville.
we should have had more 'internal' resentment
from Harry; something in the narrative voice
explaining his situation. [...]That's the way Molly is
written -- the Sledge of Sentimentalism, and
it's so bad that it doesn't even work for me in context
Actually I thought JKR did a very good job in that regard, she makes it
clear that part of Harry is embarrassed when Molly mothers him as any
teenager would be, especially when she does it in front of his friends;
but a larger part of him must like it because for the first time in his
life somebody is treating him as a beloved son.

Eggplant
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-09 23:19:08 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by eggplant
Hagrid is the one (of the good guys, obviously)
that I consider having the largest probability of dying.
I disagree, I think Harry is far more likely to die than Hagrid,
It's obviously completely subjective -- there is no incontrovertible
foreshadowing for any character, but while I'm still on the fence with
respect to Harry (leaning towards his death, but without leaving the
fence <G>), I but Hagrid's survival chances at less than one in four.
Post by eggplant
and as a plot device it might be more effective to have Hagrid
grieving over Harry rather than the reverse.
Hagrid grieving over Harry's dead body would, to me, be nauseating. Add
Molly next to Hagrid and I'll be throwing the book away in disgust.
Post by eggplant
I also think it's more likely that Ron or Hermione (but not both)
will die.
You could be right. I know that Rowling sees these things differently
from me, so if she so choses, their marriage would be 'happy ever
after' -- but to me it seems made in hell.

In the end I hesitate to begin to estimate probabilities, even relative
to others -- I simply have no qualified guess.
Post by eggplant
Percy and Snape will die too but they are not good guys.
I'm not sure about Percy, who seems to me neither good nor bad (but
simply a self-serving git), but Snape will die. I would not be too
surprised to see a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape, though it will require skill to do it in a
way that will be credible (in sober retrospect).
Post by eggplant
The two I am most certain will live are Ginny and Neville.
As will Ron and Hermione, I simply has no opinion to offer about them.

<snip Molly Weasley -- I can't help it, but I don't like her>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Leave this world a little better than you found it.
- Lord Robert Baden-Powell
Magic_Mom
2006-07-10 03:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
Post by eggplant
Percy and Snape will die too but they are not good guys.
I'm not sure about Percy, who seems to me neither good nor bad (but
simply a self-serving git), but Snape will die. I would not be too
surprised to see a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape, though it will require skill to do it in a
way that will be credible (in sober retrospect).
Post by eggplant
The two I am most certain will live are Ginny and Neville.
I just finished reading a fanfic in which Ron, as an auror (post series) had
to kill Percy, who had become a DE, in order to save Ginny. It was actually
a well written story, except for that part.. it just didn't *fit*.
In another fanfic, Percy was found dead, hanging, in a DE hideout.
They sure don't seem to like leaving Percy alive, lol.

M_m
FRED ZICARD
2006-07-10 15:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Re: Who are the two you think will die... and WHY??

Group: alt.fan.harry-potter Date: Sun, Jul 9, 2006, 9:21pm (EDT-2) From:
***@yeahright.com (Magic_Mom)
"Troels Forchhammer" <***@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message news:***@130.133.1.4...
In message
<news:***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "eggplant"
<***@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
Percy and Snape will die too but they are not good guys.
I'm not sure about Percy, who seems to me neither good nor bad (but
simply a self-serving git), but Snape will die. I would not be too
surprised to see a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape, though it will require skill to do it in a
way that will be credible (in sober retrospect).
The two I am most certain will live are Ginny and Neville.
I just finished reading a fanfic in which Ron, as an auror (post series)
had to kill Percy, who had become a DE, in order to save Ginny. It was
actually a well written story, except for that part.. it just didn't
*fit*. In another fanfic, Percy was found dead, hanging, in a DE
hideout. They sure don't seem to like leaving Percy alive, lol.
M_m
Where can I find these stories?
Magic_Mom
2006-07-10 15:46:49 UTC
Permalink
"FRED ZICARD" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:22691-44B26DE8->
Where can I find these stories?
http://www.checkmated.com

High quality writing there. This site is not like the fan forums where it is
about 99% kids writing out their Harry Potter fantasies. Checkmated has some
strict submission guidelines. While I have not liked all the plots, the
stories are very well written and don't "hurt my eyes" to read them, lol.

I am digging through the library looking for the specific ones I mentioned
and will post those when I find them. I didn't save them. They are mostly
all worth a look though.

M_m
eggplant
2006-07-10 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
It's obviously completely subjective
Well that's true, the only opinion that really matters is JKR's,
but I can't help it, it's fun to speculate. I think the best way to
predict what will happen in book 7 is to try to figure out what would
be the most interesting thing.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Hagrid grieving over Harry's dead body would, to me,
be nauseating. Add Molly next to Hagrid and I'll be
throwing the book away in disgust.
I think JKR could pull it off without giving us all diabetes, but then
I like Molly and Hagrid more than you do.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Snape will die. I would not be too surprised to see
a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape
But that would make me loose my lunch. I hate Snape's guts but I
respect him, so I don't want any sniveling apology from him, he must
go to his grave proud and unrepentant. But I think you're right about
one thing, I think Snape did love Harry's mother; in fact I think the
reason Snape hates Harry so much is not because he looks like James as
everybody assumes but because he blames Harry for his mother's death.


If any death is certain in book 7 it is Snape's, even more than
Voldemort's; after Snape murdered Dumbledore he simply can not be
allowed to live. No way no how.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I'm not sure about Percy, who seems to me neither
good nor bad (but simply a self-serving git)
The reason I think Percy will die is that it would be more interesting
if in book 7 Percy turned into a full fledged Death Eater rather than
remain a mere self-serving git. It would be even more interesting if,
as often happens in civil wars, he was killed by a member of his own
family.

And I sure hope JKR doesn't take this love conquers all theme too
far, I don't want Harry to kill Voldemort with love, I want Harry to
disembowel the bastard.

Eggplant
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-10 08:50:41 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by eggplant
Post by Troels Forchhammer
It's obviously completely subjective
Well that's true, the only opinion that really matters is JKR's,
but I can't help it, it's fun to speculate.
My approach is mainly analytical. Not that that prevents me from
speculating, but if my speculations cannot be supported by analysis,
then I tend towards caution -- things 'may' happen, but I can't say
that I believe they will or nill ;-)
Post by eggplant
I think the best way to predict what will happen in book 7 is
to try to figure out what would be the most interesting thing.
That's just another way of phrasing the same basic question, IMO.
Interesting to me and to JKR isn't necessarily the same (judging by
her books, I have observed differences), so what I would find
interesting or satisfying would not necessarily mean anything with
respect to the future books.

And going by what we might call the 'common quality parameters of
literary critique' (not that find myself in better agreement with
those) won't help either -- we all know that Rowling doen't exactly
receive the most positive critique from professional reviewers and
scholars of literature.

<snip>
Post by eggplant
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Snape will die. I would not be too surprised to see a death-
bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother" repentance
scene for Snape
But that would make me loose my lunch.
I'm not sure how well I would stomach it, either. But I would still not
be surprised if Rowling chose to write it that way (she might even be
influenced by the number of Snape-fans).
Post by eggplant
I hate Snape's guts but I respect him, so I don't want any
sniveling apology from him, he must go to his grave proud
and unrepentant.
Hear! Hear!
Post by eggplant
But I think you're right about one thing, I think Snape did love
Harry's mother;
I don't know about that one. In many ways it seems to me very unlikely
(based exclusively on the back-information in the books), but on the
other I would not be surprised if Rowling went that way (based on
information from outside the books and her choice of themes).
Post by eggplant
If any death is certain in book 7 it is Snape's, even more than
Voldemort's; after Snape murdered Dumbledore he simply can not be
allowed to live. No way no how.
While I fully share the sentiment, I hesitate to turn it into a
prediction. It would not surprise me if JKR chose to let him live --
even if he was the one who got a reprieve to satisfy those who wish him
to be redeemable.
Post by eggplant
The reason I think Percy will die is that it would be more
interesting if in book 7 Percy turned into a full fledged Death
Eater rather than remain a mere self-serving git. It would be even
more interesting if, as often happens in civil wars, he was killed
by a member of his own family.
Again, I can only agree with your sentiments while refusing to predict
that they will be satisfied ;)

The war, having wizards on both sides, will doubtlessly feature members
of some families waging war upon each other, but of course it would be
far more 'present' to the readers if it happens to a family that we are
intimate with, and that would automatically mean the Weasleys. If there
is room for such a story line, I think it would be great.

I was about to say something about the small time self-serving evil of
Umbridge and Percy being actually opposed to Voldemort, but on second
thought Umbridge and Percy seems to me to rather not be against
anything in particular, but to cast their lots fully (and extremely
loyally, mind you) with a good authority figure. If Voldemort could
convince them that his authority is greater, then he could probably win
them both over.
Post by eggplant
And I sure hope JKR doesn't take this love conquers all theme too
far, I don't want Harry to kill Voldemort with love, I want Harry
to disembowel the bastard.
I suspect that you'll be disappointed on that score, but time will
tell.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- /Interesting Times/ (Terry Pratchett)
gjw
2006-07-10 23:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Well, I just poked my head in here to see if the recent Rowling
remarks had provoked any new speculation, and was surprised to see
that it roused Troels from his hibernation... ;)

So, I guess I should toss in my two cents as well, before retreating
back into my splendid solitude.


WHO WILL DIE?

There's no real way to know. There's insufficient data. All we know
is that it will be at least two characters, and that those two will be
"main characters". But even that doesn't help much, since we don't
know who Rowling defines as a "main character". Obviously the trio
are, but is Ginny? Percy? Tonks? Cho? And what about the villains
(Draco, Snape, Lucius, Bellatrix, etc.) - are they also "main
characters" in this context? Since we don't know, there's no way to
make an educated guess about who will perish.


WHO WILL GET THE REPRIEVE?

We are on slightly sounder ground here, since to get a reprieve, a
character must have been on JKR's hit list to begin with. But not
much. We can ask ourselves who was likely to die in the series (but
we have no way of knowing if Rowling would agree). The only certain
casualty is Voldemort. His fate is sealed. But because of that, he
can't be the one getting the reprieve. I always assumed that Snape
was the next most likely to die (regardless of whether he turns out to
be good or evil), and I still think he will - but we can't completely
rule him out for the reprieve (especially given his huge role in HBP).
When asked to speculate on who is likely to die next, fans have always
favored Hagrid and Dumbledore. Dumbledore is already gone, so perhaps
that leaves Hagrid as the most likely candidate to get the reprieve...
But you could also add Draco or any of the villains, as well as
whoever JKR may have been secretly planning to kill (e.g. Lupin).


WILL HARRY DIE?

I argued for years that there was absolutely no chance of Harry dying
(or any of the trio, for that matter). However, that certainty was
based on the simple assumption that Rowling, a writer of children's
books that stress the value of love & compassion) would never be cruel
enough to kill off the beloved hero of her series, and break the
hearts of millions of children. Her last book (HBP), however, shook
my certainty. The scene in the cave (where Rowling virtually tortures
Dumbledore to death in front of the readers' eyes) was particularly
cruel, bordering on sadistic for a kids' book. As such, I am no
longer certain that JKR realizes what is and isn't suitable in
children's books, so I guess I can't put anything beyond her at this
point.

However, I am still certain that, since she is a rational human being,
she has no desire to become a social pariah. And that is exactly what
would happen to her if she killed off Harry in the final book, after
seducing an entire generation of children into caring about him.
Parents would literally throw the books at her every time she stuck
her head out the door. ("How could you! My child cried for days after
you did that!") She would go from a cherished author to the most
despised woman in England overnight. That alone should keep Harry
safe.

For a while there, after reading her interview (where she said she
wouldn't reveal whether Harry died because she didn't want to deal
with "the hate mail"), I thought that Harry might be a goner. But
having since watched the actual video of that interview (via TLC), I
believe I saw a smirk (or sense of teasing) on her face at the moment
she spoke of getting hate mail. It looks like, once again, Rowling is
toying with her fans - reminding them that she is the one pulling the
strings, and trying to keep people wondering about (what should be) a
fairly predictable ending.



BACK TO SNAPE... (and the end of the series):

What will happen to Snape in the end? Here's my prediction. He will
die trying to kill Voldemort (and, in the process, probably helping
out Harry in a key moment). But not because Snape's a good guy - only
because he has a personal grudge against the Dark Lord resulting from
Voldemort's murder of Lily.

But there will be no deathbed confessions from Snape. It's out of
character. Harry will be left to wonder why his enemy (Snape) did what
he did. For a while...

So how will we (and Harry) ultimately learn the answer?

Remember those memories which Snape took from his head (and hid in the
pensieve) when he was teaching Harry? We only saw one of them. The
other two memories will concern Snape's relationship with Lily and the
Dark Lord.

It will turn out that Snape routinely removed these memories from his
mind (when meeting with Voldemort, etc.) because they would have made
him vulnerable to legilimency. We have already seen that such memories
can be stored in a vessel (Slughorn puts his memory in a corked bottle
and gives it to Harry).

After Snape's death, Harry will discover these hidden, secret memories
and will watch them. He will learn of Snape's feelings for Lily, and
of his thirst to destroy Voldemort because of her death. He will
realize that Snape killed Dumbledore in cold blood because Dumbledore
had unknowingly become a stumbling block in Snape's plan to personal
gain vengeance against Voldemort. But also that, ironically, it was
Snape's love of Harry's mother that ultimately saved Harry's life and
brought down Voldemort.

Lily's revenge", if you will... Had she simply stepped aside at
Godric's Hollow, not only would Voldemort have been able to safely
kill Harry, but he would have avoided earning Snape's hostility as
well. So, in effect, it will be Lily's sacrificial death which
ultimately dooms Voldemort.

That will effectively leave Snape as a complex character - a mix of
both evil & good, loyal to no one but his own personal agenda, but
whose final actions save the day, and are motivated by the only love
he ever experienced. It will make for a nice twist at the end of the
book (except for people, like me, who saw it coming years ago).



(Remember this post. You can have the satisfaction of beating me
about the head with it if it turns out that I am wrong. But I will
expect a few pats on the back when it turns out to be true. ;)
eggplant
2006-07-11 05:50:23 UTC
Permalink
I am no longer certain that JKR realizes what
is and isn't suitable in children's books
JKR must get awful tired of people telling her she's just a
children's writer so she must do this and can't do that. She's
financially independent now (an understatement if there ever was one)
so she can afford to do as she pleases.

In my mind's eye I picture JKR in her vast darkened mansion sitting
in front of a huge pipe organ playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D
minor and deep in thought: " so I'm just a children's author am
I, I'll show them what a children's writer can do, I'll write an
ending to the series that will give Stephen King nightmares!". Peals
of mad diabolic laughter could be heard echoing off the walls of her
spooky castle.

What I don't understand is why everybody wants Harry to live. Harry
is a fictional character so I don't want him to have the happiest
fate possible I want him to have the most interesting fate possible.
The only thing people remember from the classic movie "Old Yeller"
is that the dog died, the only thing they remember from "Bambi" is
that his mother died. Hercules died, Achilles died, the hero of the
most profitable movie of all time died and Harry should too.
The last thing in the world that I want is a general consensus that
Rowling did ok ending things the series the way she did. No way, I want
people screaming she has corrupting the youth, I WANT CONTROVERSY!

Eggplant
Kish
2006-07-11 06:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant
I am no longer certain that JKR realizes what
is and isn't suitable in children's books
JKR must get awful tired of people telling her she's just a
children's writer so she must do this and can't do that. She's
financially independent now (an understatement if there ever was one)
so she can afford to do as she pleases.
In my mind's eye I picture JKR in her vast darkened mansion sitting
in front of a huge pipe organ playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D
minor and deep in thought: " so I'm just a children's author am
I, I'll show them what a children's writer can do, I'll write an
ending to the series that will give Stephen King nightmares!". Peals
of mad diabolic laughter could be heard echoing off the walls of her
spooky castle.
What I don't understand is why everybody wants Harry to live. Harry
is a fictional character so I don't want him to have the happiest
fate possible I want him to have the most interesting fate possible.
The only thing people remember from the classic movie "Old Yeller"
is that the dog died, the only thing they remember from "Bambi" is
that his mother died.
Erm.

I would venture that if people remember only one thing from each of
those, that indicates each of them is an abject failure. (Note, before
anyone takes umbrage at me for saying something negative about Old
Yeller or Bambi, that I am speaking purely in the hypothetical case
where what Eggplant said is 100% correct.)
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-11 15:04:01 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by eggplant
I am no longer certain that JKR realizes what is and isn't
suitable in children's books
JKR must get awful tired of people telling her she's just a
children's writer
Why the 'just'?

To me there is absolutely nothing 'just' about that -- she's an author,
a /children's/ author, even. That she considers herself as such can be
seen from the fact that she says so herself ;-) (or at least she says
that her books are children's books, which amounts to the same thing).
Post by eggplant
so she must do this and can't do that. She's financially
independent now (an understatement if there ever was one)
so she can afford to do as she pleases.
It has nothing to do with financial independency or lack thereof, but
all to do with literary conventions. I don't think Rowling is a good
enough author to break significantly with conventions -- in particular
since the convention (in terms of the unspoken 'contract' between
author and readers) has such a strong place in children's fiction.

That, however, doesn't mean that she cannot kill off Harry -- the main
characters have been killed off before now in children's books; in
Lindgren's /The Brothers Lionheart/ they even die twice . . . (though
the book contains the promise of a life after death, but so does the
Potter books).

The mistake, IMO, is to assume that children's literature is
necessarily cutesy and sentimental (although the Potter books have some
very wide streaks of, IMO overdone, sentimentalism). Children's books
can be scaring, as cynical etc. etc. as any book for an adult audience.
Post by eggplant
No way, I want people screaming she has corrupting the youth, I
WANT CONTROVERSY!
Yea, and I want consistency -- but I doubt that any of us will be fully
satisfied (although I also believe that none of us will be really
dissatisfied) :/
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Thom Madura
2006-07-11 21:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
Post by eggplant
I am no longer certain that JKR realizes what is and isn't
suitable in children's books
JKR must get awful tired of people telling her she's just a
children's writer
Why the 'just'?
To me there is absolutely nothing 'just' about that -- she's an author,
a /children's/ author, even. That she considers herself as such can be
seen from the fact that she says so herself ;-) (or at least she says
that her books are children's books, which amounts to the same thing).
Post by eggplant
so she must do this and can't do that. She's financially
independent now (an understatement if there ever was one)
so she can afford to do as she pleases.
It has nothing to do with financial independency or lack thereof, but
all to do with literary conventions. I don't think Rowling is a good
enough author to break significantly with conventions -- in particular
since the convention (in terms of the unspoken 'contract' between
author and readers) has such a strong place in children's fiction.
That, however, doesn't mean that she cannot kill off Harry -- the main
characters have been killed off before now in children's books; in
Lindgren's /The Brothers Lionheart/ they even die twice . . . (though
the book contains the promise of a life after death, but so does the
Potter books).
The mistake, IMO, is to assume that children's literature is
necessarily cutesy and sentimental (although the Potter books have some
very wide streaks of, IMO overdone, sentimentalism). Children's books
can be scaring, as cynical etc. etc. as any book for an adult audience.
Go back before you read BOOKS to Humpty Dumpty - who apparently died.
Even young children's rhymes and short stories have death and injury in
them.

However - I feel that just because JKR brought up the subject of Harry's
death - doesn't mean that she intends to kill him at all - much less
during the V struggle. SHe has often said things like this in the past
when she didn't want to reveal too much of the real plot. In fact - I
believe that it really means that she will not kill him off during the V
plot - and was just a way of getting people to think about the other
obvious possibility - that she would allow him to die in an epilogue
(Something I have predicted since the second book).
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by eggplant
No way, I want people screaming she has corrupting the youth, I
WANT CONTROVERSY!
Yea, and I want consistency -- but I doubt that any of us will be fully
satisfied (although I also believe that none of us will be really
dissatisfied) :/
Jean Lamb
2006-07-12 01:31:06 UTC
Permalink
(snip)>
Post by eggplant
What I don't understand is why everybody wants Harry to live. Harry
is a fictional character so I don't want him to have the happiest
fate possible I want him to have the most interesting fate possible.
The only thing people remember from the classic movie "Old Yeller"
is that the dog died, the only thing they remember from "Bambi" is
that his mother died. Hercules died, Achilles died, the hero of the
most profitable movie of all time died and Harry should too.
The last thing in the world that I want is a general consensus that
Rowling did ok ending things the series the way she did. No way, I want
people screaming she has corrupting the youth, I WANT CONTROVERSY!
Eggplant
--I agree. And there are, after all, fates worse than death. Harry ending up
as the next Dark Lord is certainly one of them--and that possibility is
still open, whether through total Voldie-possession, a bad bite from Nagini,
or simply too much certitude in his Rightness (cough cough Robespierre cough
cough).

Death is only the next great adventure compared to those possibilities.
--
Jean Lamb, ***@charter.net
"Research is hard. Torturing heroes is fun."--Mary Jo Putney
Green-Eyed Chris
2006-07-11 15:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
Well, I just poked my head in here to see if the recent Rowling
remarks had provoked any new speculation, and was surprised to see
that it roused Troels from his hibernation... ;)
So, I guess I should toss in my two cents as well, before retreating
back into my splendid solitude.
WHO WILL DIE?
There's no real way to know. There's insufficient data. All we know
is that it will be at least two characters, and that those two will be
"main characters". But even that doesn't help much, since we don't
know who Rowling defines as a "main character". Obviously the trio
are, but is Ginny? Percy? Tonks? Cho? And what about the villains
(Draco, Snape, Lucius, Bellatrix, etc.) - are they also "main
characters" in this context? Since we don't know, there's no way to
make an educated guess about who will perish.
WHO WILL GET THE REPRIEVE?
We are on slightly sounder ground here, since to get a reprieve, a
character must have been on JKR's hit list to begin with. But not
much. We can ask ourselves who was likely to die in the series (but
we have no way of knowing if Rowling would agree). The only certain
casualty is Voldemort. His fate is sealed. But because of that, he
can't be the one getting the reprieve. I always assumed that Snape
was the next most likely to die (regardless of whether he turns out to
be good or evil), and I still think he will - but we can't completely
rule him out for the reprieve (especially given his huge role in HBP).
When asked to speculate on who is likely to die next, fans have always
favored Hagrid and Dumbledore. Dumbledore is already gone, so perhaps
that leaves Hagrid as the most likely candidate to get the reprieve...
But you could also add Draco or any of the villains, as well as
whoever JKR may have been secretly planning to kill (e.g. Lupin).
WILL HARRY DIE?
I argued for years that there was absolutely no chance of Harry dying
(or any of the trio, for that matter). However, that certainty was
based on the simple assumption that Rowling, a writer of children's
books that stress the value of love & compassion) would never be cruel
enough to kill off the beloved hero of her series, and break the
hearts of millions of children. Her last book (HBP), however, shook
my certainty. The scene in the cave (where Rowling virtually tortures
Dumbledore to death in front of the readers' eyes) was particularly
cruel, bordering on sadistic for a kids' book. As such, I am no
longer certain that JKR realizes what is and isn't suitable in
children's books, so I guess I can't put anything beyond her at this
point.
However, I am still certain that, since she is a rational human being,
she has no desire to become a social pariah. And that is exactly what
would happen to her if she killed off Harry in the final book, after
seducing an entire generation of children into caring about him.
Parents would literally throw the books at her every time she stuck
her head out the door. ("How could you! My child cried for days after
you did that!") She would go from a cherished author to the most
despised woman in England overnight. That alone should keep Harry
safe.
For a while there, after reading her interview (where she said she
wouldn't reveal whether Harry died because she didn't want to deal
with "the hate mail"), I thought that Harry might be a goner. But
having since watched the actual video of that interview (via TLC), I
believe I saw a smirk (or sense of teasing) on her face at the moment
she spoke of getting hate mail. It looks like, once again, Rowling is
toying with her fans - reminding them that she is the one pulling the
strings, and trying to keep people wondering about (what should be) a
fairly predictable ending.
What will happen to Snape in the end? Here's my prediction. He will
die trying to kill Voldemort (and, in the process, probably helping
out Harry in a key moment). But not because Snape's a good guy - only
because he has a personal grudge against the Dark Lord resulting from
Voldemort's murder of Lily.
But there will be no deathbed confessions from Snape. It's out of
character. Harry will be left to wonder why his enemy (Snape) did what
he did. For a while...
So how will we (and Harry) ultimately learn the answer?
Remember those memories which Snape took from his head (and hid in the
pensieve) when he was teaching Harry? We only saw one of them. The
other two memories will concern Snape's relationship with Lily and the
Dark Lord.
It will turn out that Snape routinely removed these memories from his
mind (when meeting with Voldemort, etc.) because they would have made
him vulnerable to legilimency. We have already seen that such memories
can be stored in a vessel (Slughorn puts his memory in a corked bottle
and gives it to Harry).
After Snape's death, Harry will discover these hidden, secret memories
and will watch them. He will learn of Snape's feelings for Lily, and
of his thirst to destroy Voldemort because of her death. He will
realize that Snape killed Dumbledore in cold blood because Dumbledore
had unknowingly become a stumbling block in Snape's plan to personal
gain vengeance against Voldemort. But also that, ironically, it was
Snape's love of Harry's mother that ultimately saved Harry's life and
brought down Voldemort.
Lily's revenge", if you will... Had she simply stepped aside at
Godric's Hollow, not only would Voldemort have been able to safely
kill Harry, but he would have avoided earning Snape's hostility as
well. So, in effect, it will be Lily's sacrificial death which
ultimately dooms Voldemort.
That will effectively leave Snape as a complex character - a mix of
both evil & good, loyal to no one but his own personal agenda, but
whose final actions save the day, and are motivated by the only love
he ever experienced. It will make for a nice twist at the end of the
book (except for people, like me, who saw it coming years ago).
(Remember this post. You can have the satisfaction of beating me
about the head with it if it turns out that I am wrong. But I will
expect a few pats on the back when it turns out to be true. ;)
As long as Book 7 ends in the way described here, I do not really care
whether Snape is thought of as evil or not. But if any memories are still
in his office, then the aurors have been derelict in thier duty.
--
Chris
Jean Lamb
2006-07-12 01:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Green-Eyed Chris
Post by gjw
(Remember this post. You can have the satisfaction of beating me
about the head with it if it turns out that I am wrong. But I will
expect a few pats on the back when it turns out to be true. ;)
As long as Book 7 ends in the way described here, I do not really care
whether Snape is thought of as evil or not. But if any memories are still
in his office, then the aurors have been derelict in thier duty.
--
Chris
--Depends on what they're in. There are some jars NOBODY wants to open, if
they've been charmed to look like er, Special Potions Ingredients.
Especially if the contents still appear to be moving.

("We'll let Mikey open the jar, he's new...")
--
Jean Lamb, ***@charter.net
"Research is hard. Torturing heroes is fun."--Mary Jo Putney
DaveD
2006-07-11 20:19:43 UTC
Permalink
"gjw" <***@example.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
[snip]
Post by gjw
(Remember this post. You can have the satisfaction of beating me
about the head with it if it turns out that I am wrong. But I will
expect a few pats on the back when it turns out to be true. ;)
So who needs book 7? Looks like it's all here - and very credibly worked out
:)

Nice one!

DaveD
Jano
2006-07-11 23:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by gjw
However, I am still certain that, since she is a rational human being,
she has no desire to become a social pariah. And that is exactly what
would happen to her if she killed off Harry in the final book, after
seducing an entire generation of children into caring about him.
Parents would literally throw the books at her every time she stuck
her head out the door. ("How could you! My child cried for days after
you did that!") She would go from a cherished author to the most
despised woman in England overnight. That alone should keep Harry
safe.
This point has been argued several times and I don't think it holds much
water. Tragic deaths, if done well, are much stronger than a Disney ending,
or even if other major characters die. And if you find Harry dying
upsetting, Harry alive and Ginny dead would be more cruel, in a number of
ways. (I'd dare say that it would be sadistic on JKR part). Furthermore
you're forgetting the lots of people who aren't that moved by that little
wizard wannabe that is Harry... Certainly less likeable in my eyes than DD,
Hermione, Lupin, Snape for starters. (Are you there, lots?)

I wonder how would people react if it ended in a real tragedy, where the two
main couples were dead because it's the required sacrifice to defeat all
evil.
--
Take the Snape polls: http://snape.mosteo.com [Updated 16/Aug/05]
*MYSTIC*
2006-07-12 01:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jano
This point has been argued several times and I don't think it holds much
water. Tragic deaths, if done well, are much stronger than a Disney ending,
or even if other major characters die.
Disney has watered down many of the original endings to stories, to make
them more sellable. Strong stories are not always what sells.

But I have to agree that Jo does not like hate mail.
DaveD
2006-07-10 20:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Snape will die. I would not be too surprised to see
a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape
But that would make me loose my lunch. I hate Snape's guts but I
respect him, so I don't want any sniveling apology from him, he must
go to his grave proud and unrepentant. But I think you're right about
one thing, I think Snape did love Harry's mother; in fact I think the
reason Snape hates Harry so much is not because he looks like James as
everybody assumes but because he blames Harry for his mother's death.
And because each time he sees Harry, he's reminded of Lilly, and of his own
role in her death, if inadvertent, by telling Voldy of the prophecy.
Post by eggplant
If any death is certain in book 7 it is Snape's, even more than
Voldemort's; after Snape murdered Dumbledore he simply can not be
allowed to live. No way no how.
The reason I think Percy will die is that it would be more interesting
if in book 7 Percy turned into a full fledged Death Eater rather than
remain a mere self-serving git. It would be even more interesting if,
as often happens in civil wars, he was killed by a member of his own
family.
I don't know if JKR find fratricide worse than "normal" murder, but I
suspect there may be a Weasley v Weasley fight, possibly fatal.
Post by eggplant
And I sure hope JKR doesn't take this love conquers all theme too
far, I don't want Harry to kill Voldemort with love, I want Harry to
disembowel the bastard.
In the MoM scene in OoTP, there's an interesting bit that I haven't seen
mentioned here (apologies if I missed it!) where Voldy possesses Harry
(presumably via his horcrux) [runs and ducks] and Harry thinks it would be
better to be dead but with Sirius and is filled with love for his godfather,
which gets rid of Voldy's possession. I'd almost suspect he'd just killed
off another Horcrux except Dd never mentions it. But I have a suspicion that
motif may recur in book 7 as part of the way Harry kills Voldy (he thinks
he's got to kill himself to get rid of the last horcrux, and is filled with
sadness but also love for all the people he's lost, but that love kills
Voldy and so Harry gets a reprieve of his own.)

DaveD
Thom Madura
2006-07-10 21:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant
Post by Troels Forchhammer
It's obviously completely subjective
Well that's true, the only opinion that really matters is JKR's,
but I can't help it, it's fun to speculate. I think the best way to
predict what will happen in book 7 is to try to figure out what would
be the most interesting thing.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Hagrid grieving over Harry's dead body would, to me,
be nauseating. Add Molly next to Hagrid and I'll be
throwing the book away in disgust.
I think JKR could pull it off without giving us all diabetes, but then
I like Molly and Hagrid more than you do.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Snape will die. I would not be too surprised to see
a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape
But that would make me loose my lunch. I hate Snape's guts but I
respect him, so I don't want any sniveling apology from him, he must
go to his grave proud and unrepentant. But I think you're right about
one thing, I think Snape did love Harry's mother; in fact I think the
reason Snape hates Harry so much is not because he looks like James as
everybody assumes but because he blames Harry for his mother's death.
If any death is certain in book 7 it is Snape's, even more than
Voldemort's; after Snape murdered Dumbledore he simply can not be
allowed to live. No way no how.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I'm not sure about Percy, who seems to me neither
good nor bad (but simply a self-serving git)
The reason I think Percy will die is that it would be more interesting
if in book 7 Percy turned into a full fledged Death Eater rather than
remain a mere self-serving git. It would be even more interesting if,
as often happens in civil wars, he was killed by a member of his own
family.
And I sure hope JKR doesn't take this love conquers all theme too
far, I don't want Harry to kill Voldemort with love, I want Harry to
disembowel the bastard.
Eggplant
I don't agree about percy. I don't think anyone really cares about him
that much. Maybe it would be interesting if he turned into a DE and died
that way - but any other way would be a waste of space in the book to
me. I don't believe that he will become a DE though.

JKR has set up one death as far as I am concerned - and that is in the
Weasley Wedding upcoming. I would suspect that it will be interupted
somehow - maybe that day - maybe before - but someone is going to die.
(and it isn't Percy - who I think will return to the fold even before
this).

Love will have some role to play in V's death - but there are a number
of other things that have been set up. Obviously, using Harry's blood is
one, then Pettigrew is another - and Snape. Harry's "powers" he got from
V will help as well - since he can talk to Nagini too. THey both still
have the wands that interact too. It could be interesting even without V
getting his head chopped off.

My question - do you think Harry will use an AK to do it?
DaveD
2006-07-10 20:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
[snip]
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I'm not sure about Percy, who seems to me neither good nor bad (but
simply a self-serving git), but Snape will die. I would not be too
surprised to see a death-bed "I'm so sorry, I always loved your mother"
repentance scene for Snape, though it will require skill to do it in a
way that will be credible (in sober retrospect).
Yes, somehow they've got to bring out Snape's repentence and love for Lilly
just as/b4 he dies saving Harry.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by eggplant
The two I am most certain will live are Ginny and Neville.
As will Ron and Hermione, I simply has no opinion to offer about them.
<snip Molly Weasley -- I can't help it, but I don't like her>
*shock* I love her character - I think she's wonderful! Admittedly helped a
bit (ok, a lot) by Julie Walters portrayal of the character in the films so
I can't read the books without hearing her, but still, she's wonderful! (I
wonder if that's because she seems so warm and genuinely loving, rather
unlike my own! Which is perhaps why I can understand how Harry can cope with
it ok)

DaveD
eggplant
2006-07-07 17:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
The context of death and life here must be
the struggle against Lord Voldemort specifically.
Or deaths caused in the struggle against Snape. I'm not really
predicting it but sometimes I wonder if Harry will dispose of Voldemort
at the halfway point of book 7 and then go after the real villain of
the series. By the way Troels I'm glad to see you back.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
it is utterly pointless to look in the books for clues.
True the books won't tell us what those 3 changes are but other
things might, like JKR's confessed sadness and ending the series.
I'm sure none of those 3 changes involve Harry's fate, from book 1
JKR knew if he will live or die. And if Harry dies, as I think he will,
JKR must wonder what would happen if 20 years from now she changes her
mind and wants to enter the Potter world again. That's why I think
Ginny who originally was going to die will now live so she can produce
Harry Potter Junior and also to give a little solace to those fans
grieving over Harry's death. I'm not saying JKR will ever write
Harry Potter Junior stories, but if I were her I'd want that option.

Eggplant
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-07 23:46:14 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by eggplant
The context of death and life here must be the struggle against
Lord Voldemort specifically.
Or deaths caused in the struggle against Snape. I'm not really
predicting it but sometimes I wonder if Harry will dispose of
Voldemort at the halfway point of book 7 and then go after the
real villain of the series.
LOL!

That'd be a treat ;-)

I don't think that that is likely -- the big baddie will be the one
who has been set up as the big baddie through all the books, and the
former potions master will, at most, be defeated as the loyal Death
Eater he has been portrayed as (whether or no that portrayal is the
whole picture).
Post by eggplant
By the way Troels I'm glad to see you back.
Well -- it's holiday time, and it's either this or paint the house ;-)

Thanks.
Post by eggplant
it is utterly pointless to look in the books for clues.
True the books won't tell us what those 3 changes are
Precisely -- it seemed that every forum I tried to look at had gone
completely mad with "Who are the two to die" threads, causing me to be
a bit more caustic than my usual cheerful self ;-)

I was happy, though, to see that people here had, at least, not fallen
prey to the idea that /only/ two would die.
Post by eggplant
but other things might, like JKR's confessed sadness and ending
the series.
I'm not sure if that tells us anything new -- we always knew that there
would be more deaths, and we also knew that she is emotionally attached
to her characters (more so than her readers), so sadness at having to
leave them has always been expected.
Post by eggplant
I'm sure none of those 3 changes involve Harry's fate, from book 1
JKR knew if he will live or die.
I agree entirely. I actually found her statements with regards to
Harry's survival particularly nonsensical. "I've never been tempted to
kill him off before the end of the book because I've always planned
seven books, and I want to finish on seven books," she is reported as
saying, and that is pure <I'm sure there's an appropriate idiom
referring to statements that are completely without any meaningful
content and yet are also completely true (a practice often seen from
politicians)>. Of course she hasn't been tempted to kill off Harry in
any of the first six books, because it has always been a seven-book
series, and the only interesting question is whether she is or has been
tempted to kill him off, and in particular whether she'll give in to
the temptation.

I think that the interview, as reported by the Daily Mail[1] implies
that she does, at least presently, feel tempted to kill off Harry, but
I think it would be going too far to claim that the statement about
Harry implies the unsaid, that she has always 'been tempted' (read
'meant') to kill him off at the end of book 7.
Post by eggplant
And if Harry dies, as I think he will,
I am confident that Harry's death will be described in book 7: the big
question is whether he will die in immediate connection to the battle
against Lord Voldemort. The motivation she gives for authors wanting
"to finish off their main characters" would be equally satisfied by a
reasonably thorough epilogue ending with their deaths.

Did anyone actually watch that Channel 4 interview, who can say how
strong the suggestion of Harry's death really is?
Post by eggplant
JKR must wonder what would happen if 20 years from now she changes
her mind and wants to enter the Potter world again.
Do you seriously think that she is planning for that contingency?
There are lots of stories to tell in the Potterverse without doing any
advance planning.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Smile
a while
ere day
is done
and all
your gall
will soon
be gone.
Rik Shepherd
2006-07-08 00:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I am confident that Harry's death will be described in book 7: the big
question is whether he will die in immediate connection to the battle
against Lord Voldemort. The motivation she gives for authors wanting
"to finish off their main characters" would be equally satisfied by a
reasonably thorough epilogue ending with their deaths.
If she writes a reasonably thorough epilogue in the hope of stopping other
people hijacking her characters she'll have to make sure it states pretty
strongly that no-one who survives book 7 ever does anything even mildly
exciting again; the Holmesian pastiches started because Doyle scattered his
stories with references to adventures he hadn't written*. A line like "Five
years later Harry and Neville saved Birmingham from a rogue Norwegian
Ridgeback" has a subtext of "Hey! Bloomsbury! Here's an opportunity to
continue the franchise".

* I think the first were by Doyle's son (or possibly grandson) with or
without John Dickson Carr. The least worst are the ones credited to Carr,
which might go to show something or other.
Eric Bohlman
2006-07-08 01:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
I agree entirely. I actually found her statements with regards to
Harry's survival particularly nonsensical. "I've never been tempted to
kill him off before the end of the book because I've always planned
seven books, and I want to finish on seven books," she is reported as
saying, and that is pure <I'm sure there's an appropriate idiom
referring to statements that are completely without any meaningful
content and yet are also completely true (a practice often seen from
politicians)>. Of course she hasn't been tempted to kill off Harry in
I think the phrase you're looking for is "vacuously true."
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-08 19:49:16 UTC
Permalink
In message <news:***@130.133.1.4> Eric
Bohlman <***@omsdev.com> enriched us with:
<snip>
Post by Eric Bohlman
I think the phrase you're looking for is "vacuously true."
Bingo!

Thanks ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Original thought
is a straightforward process.
It's easy enough
when you know what to do.
You simply combine
in appropriate doses
the blatantly false
and the patently true.
Yair Friedman
2006-07-09 12:12:36 UTC
Permalink
On 7 Jul 2006 23:46:14 GMT,
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Did anyone actually watch that Channel 4 interview, who can say how
strong the suggestion of Harry's death really is?
See for yourself:

Transcript of the interview:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/index.php?articleID=8796

and video:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/index.php?articleID=8791

Troels,

It's so nice to have you back. I hope that you will have some time to
stay with us even when the holiday ends.
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-15 16:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yair Friedman
On 7 Jul 2006 23:46:14 GMT,
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Did anyone actually watch that Channel 4 interview, who can say how
strong the suggestion of Harry's death really is?
<snip links to the Leaky Cauldron>

They've really got that set up very nicely, haven't they ;-)

I suppose the recognition / accreditation implicit in the TLC/MN
interview has boosted these two sites' standing enough to make this
kind of things possible.
Post by Yair Friedman
Troels,
It's so nice to have you back. I hope that you will have some time to
stay with us even when the holiday ends.
Nice to be back for a spell, but it's really about over now. I'm due
back at work on Monday, and tomorrow there's a family birthday, so most
likely today will be the last you see of me in this round. I'll be back
at some other time to advocate again the value of proper argumentation
and strict adherence to canon ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is
here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by
something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is
another theory which states that this has already happened.
- Douglas Adams
Zolak of Twylo
2006-07-08 14:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by eggplant
Post by Troels Forchhammer
The context of death and life here must be
the struggle against Lord Voldemort specifically.
Or deaths caused in the struggle against Snape. I'm not really
predicting it but sometimes I wonder if Harry will dispose of Voldemort
at the halfway point of book 7 and then go after the real villain of
the series.
A good point, this.

Bear in mind, I'm still undecided on Snape, but there's more here
than meets the eye.

JKR has said that we now have enough clues to solve the mystery.
We just have to know where to look. One of those clues is that
Snape is an excellent Legilimens. Looking back to PS/SS, surely
he would have know at some point in the year that Quirrell was hiding
something and perhaps even knew what that something was. He very
well may have known LV was back and trying to regain his strength. Makes
me wonder if he has been molding and shaping the situation in some
way so that Harry is forced to face LV and in the course, the two
would dispose of each other. Still, Snape is torn because DD has trusted
him all this time.

On the other hand, it seems that DD knew more than he let on all along.
Just reviewed PS/SS that other day and thought. Why did DD choose
that particular day to have Hagrid retrieve the PS/SS from Gringott's?
Surely it has been around for centuries. It probably has been in that
very vault for that length of time. Why did he choose this time, when
he knew Harry was coming to HW, to retrieve it? Did he know something
about Quirrell? DD could sense magic. Why wouldn't he be able to
sense something about Quirrel when interviewing him for the job? Why
wouldn't he be able to sense something about Quirrell at some point
during the year? I refuse to believe that DD was totally in the dark for
an entire year. (Same goes for Goblet with CrouchMoody.) I think he
has had this scenario planned out for some time and it included his
death.
--
Enjoy,

Zolak of Twylo
n***@cs.com
2006-07-07 08:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
By the way, very good authors have been known to change whether a
main character lived or died, even at the last minute, based on the
reactions of beta readers. Sometimes it's changed even _after_ the
book is in print (though in those cases it's usually a later reprint
with a different editor, and changed back to the author's preferred
version).
Well yes. If it is caused by editor interference, it is hard to blame
a financially strapped author for giving in to pressure.
Post by Richard Eney
I think Podkayne Of Mars wound up with three very different
endings.
That's Heinlein. But can you cite examples of GOOD authors?
Richard Eney
2006-07-07 10:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
By the way, very good authors have been known to change whether a
main character lived or died, even at the last minute, based on the
reactions of beta readers. Sometimes it's changed even _after_ the
book is in print (though in those cases it's usually a later reprint
with a different editor, and changed back to the author's preferred
version).
Well yes. If it is caused by editor interference, it is hard to blame
a financially strapped author for giving in to pressure.
Post by Richard Eney
I think Podkayne Of Mars wound up with three very different
endings.
That's Heinlein. But can you cite examples of GOOD authors?
Terry Pratchett changed one character's fate because of the reactions
of beta readers. (The change was from "died" to "lived".)

=Tamar
n***@cs.com
2006-07-07 20:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Terry Pratchett changed one character's fate because of the reactions
of beta readers. (The change was from "died" to "lived".)
Yes, but does anyone have any examples of GOOD authors.
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-07 21:10:39 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
Terry Pratchett changed one character's fate because of the
reactions of beta readers. (The change was from "died" to
"lived".)
Yes, but does anyone have any examples of GOOD authors.
If you dismiss Pratchett, of what interest is it then in this context?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz
n***@cs.com
2006-07-08 01:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
Terry Pratchett changed one character's fate because of the
reactions of beta readers. (The change was from "died" to
"lived".)
Yes, but does anyone have any examples of GOOD authors.
If you dismiss Pratchett, of what interest is it then in this context?
If I did not dismiss Pratchett, why would it be of greater interest in
this context? Or are you suggesting that no-one can possibly have a
higher opinion of Rowling than of Pratchett?
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-08 19:31:08 UTC
Permalink
In message
<news:***@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
***@cs.com enriched us with:
<snip>
Post by n***@cs.com
If I did not dismiss Pratchett, why would it be of greater
interest in this context?
As you were clamouring for good authors an example of one who is
generally acclaimed as such ought to be interesting -- if all you
wanted to listen to were 'authors I care to hear about', the rest of us
are at a slight disadvantage.
Post by n***@cs.com
Or are you suggesting that no-one can possibly have a higher
opinion of Rowling than of Pratchett?
I would never presume to do something like that. And though I do hold
Pratchett to be a better author than Rowling in many ways, I don't
think that he is planning his books any better (or more carefully), or
is better at maintaining consistency and coherence in his sub-created
world (although I do think he is better at maintaining his individual
plots coherent and consistent).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
n***@cs.com
2006-07-09 11:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
<snip>
Post by n***@cs.com
If I did not dismiss Pratchett, why would it be of greater
interest in this context?
As you were clamouring for good authors an example of one who is
generally acclaimed as such ought to be interesting
Did I? Darn. I'd better make sure to add smileys at the end of my
posts or people will take me too seriously. The truth is, I am not
particularly anxious for examples of "good" authors who pander to their
readers in the manner described. It was no surprise to me that I
happened to have a low opinion of the two examples listed, and the
information did not raise them in my estimation.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
-- if all you
wanted to listen to were 'authors I care to hear about', the rest of us
are at a slight disadvantage.
Heaven forbid!
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-09 23:24:04 UTC
Permalink
In message
<news:***@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
***@cs.com enriched us with:
<snip>
Post by n***@cs.com
Did I? Darn. I'd better make sure to add smileys at the end of
my posts or people will take me too seriously.
Sorry -- my sarcasm-detector were in lab for recalibration :/
Post by n***@cs.com
The truth is, I am not particularly anxious for examples of
"good" authors who pander to their readers in the manner
described.
Does the manner of pandering make a difference? Obviously Rowling will
not be making any last-minute changes due to response from beta-
readers, as the secrecy surrounding the Potter releases probably makes
beta-readers impossible, but that does not, IMO, mean that she doesn't
pander to her readers in other ways.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
n***@cs.com
2006-07-10 05:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Post by n***@cs.com
The truth is, I am not particularly anxious for examples of
"good" authors who pander to their readers in the manner
described.
Does the manner of pandering make a difference?
I would say so, yes. Pandering has a negative connotation, so that it
is almost by definition a "bad thing". But things that others might
(perhaps not entirely unreasonably) consider as "pandering" is
potentially very broad. No doubt, some such applications of the word
might apply to Rowling, since she is popular author, who so far seems
to please most of her audience. Naturally, I reserve the right to
disapprove of some kinds of "pandering" less than I do others, or even
to approve of things that others might call "pandering".
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Obviously Rowling will
not be making any last-minute changes due to response from beta-
readers, as the secrecy surrounding the Potter releases probably makes
beta-readers impossible, [...]
Well, my high opinion of Rowling is partly based on the belief that she
would not do this even if she could. I have suspicions as to where the
series is headed and how it will end.
Post by Troels Forchhammer
[...] but that does not, IMO, mean that she doesn't
pander to her readers in other ways.
So it's a good thing I worded my post so carefully, or I would have
walked into a trap, & you'd be trying to make me eat my words.
Richard Eney
2006-07-10 11:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
Terry Pratchett changed one character's fate because of the reactions
of beta readers. (The change was from "died" to "lived".)
Yes, but does anyone have any examples of GOOD authors.
If you insist on mundane authors, how about Charles Dickens?
He wrote a different ending for Great Expectations because his beta
readers/editors were Pip+Emma shippers.

=Tamar
n***@cs.com
2006-07-11 01:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
Terry Pratchett changed one character's fate because of the reactions
of beta readers. (The change was from "died" to "lived".)
Yes, but does anyone have any examples of GOOD authors.
If you insist on mundane authors, how about Charles Dickens?
He wrote a different ending for Great Expectations because his beta
readers/editors were Pip+Emma shippers.
Well, okay. I probably got to hand it to you -- that's about as good
an example as anyone is likely to come up with.

However, though I won't go so far as to deny that Dickens is a GOOD
author, I will say this: I am rather of the opinion that original
ending was better. That, perhaps, is all I need say.

You are incorrect, however, to say "beta readers" in the plural. There
was, as far as I know, only one reader -- Dicken's good friend and
fellow author Bulwer-Lytton. B-L argued very strongly that the ending
should be changed (for reasons that are unknown, and are therefore hard
to find fault with) and Dickens permitted himself to be persuaded.
Some have suggested that the real reasons had to do with Dickens
avoiding inadvertent plagiarization of another work, and less to do
with B-L being a "shipper".

BTW, her name was Estella, not Emma.
Richard Eney
2006-07-11 09:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
If you insist on mundane authors, how about Charles Dickens?
He wrote a different ending for Great Expectations because his beta
readers/editors were Pip+Emma shippers.
Well, okay. I probably got to hand it to you -- that's about as good
an example as anyone is likely to come up with.
However, though I won't go so far as to deny that Dickens is a GOOD
author, I will say this: I am rather of the opinion that original
ending was better. That, perhaps, is all I need say.
You are incorrect, however, to say "beta readers" in the plural. There
was, as far as I know, only one reader -- Dicken's good friend and
fellow author Bulwer-Lytton. B-L argued very strongly that the ending
should be changed (for reasons that are unknown, and are therefore hard
to find fault with) and Dickens permitted himself to be persuaded.
Some have suggested that the real reasons had to do with Dickens
avoiding inadvertent plagiarization of another work, and less to do
with B-L being a "shipper".
I vaguely recall something in the high-school textbook about Dickens
saying it was because his advisor knew the reading public would be
upset if he didn't have the hero marry the only potential heroine in
sight. Dickens preferred his original ending. So do I, since
Pip was a right little snob and would never have married Estella
after he found out about her parents.
Post by n***@cs.com
BTW, her name was Estella, not Emma.
Yeah, once again it comes to me after I hit "Send". Too many British
references to P.M. as pip-emma. That's my story and I'm standing
by it.

=Tamar
Mauro
2006-07-07 16:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
I think Podkayne Of Mars wound up with three very different
endings.
That's Heinlein. But can you cite examples of GOOD authors?
Le sigh. I hope you are kidding. Just in case you aren't...

You do realize that Heinlein is considered one of the best science fiction
writers of the 1940's through 1960's, right? You are aware that he won the
Hugo for best science fiction or fantasy novel (the same award that Goblet
of Fire won for 2001 -- HA, that makes this on-topic!) not one, not two, not
three, but four times, for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (a script for a
movie adaptation is currently being written by Tim Minnear, who has been a
writer and/or producer for Angel, Firefly, Wonderfalls, X-Files, Lois and
Clark: The New Superman Adventures, and others), Stranger in a Strange Land,
Starship Troopers (which was made into a somewhat enjoyable movie that had
just about only two things in common with one the book), and Double Star.

Oops, just checked the "Hugo Award by Year" list at
http://worldcon.org/hy.html , and apparently some awards were given out for
years where war or other political upheaval prevented a Hugo ceremony, and
he also won for Farmer in the Sky. That makes five Hugos for best novel.

Along with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, Heinlein is considered one of
the "Big Three" of the golden age of science fiction.

That Heinlein?
n***@cs.com
2006-07-07 18:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mauro
Post by n***@cs.com
Post by Richard Eney
I think Podkayne Of Mars wound up with three very different
endings.
That's Heinlein. But can you cite examples of GOOD authors?
Le sigh. I hope you are kidding.
I expressed my own sincere opinion in a humorous way.
Post by Mauro
Just in case you aren't...
You do realize that Heinlein is considered one of the best science fiction
writers of the 1940's through 1960's, right?
Yes I do. But obviously, I am among the people who disagree with the
people who express the view you just cited.
Post by Mauro
You are aware that he won the
Hugo for best science fiction or fantasy novel (the same award that Goblet
of Fire won for 2001 -- HA, that makes this on-topic!) not one, not two, not
three, but ... <snip more wonderful awards and accolatdes>
Five times. No. I did not know that specific fact, but it does not
surprise me in light of his reputation. I'm not sure why you think I
should care.
Post by Mauro
Along with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, Heinlein is considered one of
the "Big Three" of the golden age of science fiction.
I don't really have a strong opinion on these two authors. From the
little I have read of both, I am not enthusiastic. But I do not
actively dislike them to the extent I dislike Heinlein.
Chip Stobb
2006-07-10 20:44:48 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Jul 2006 20:52:35 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
Post by eggplant
I made the same mistake at first but when you read the entire
interview you realize many more than 2 major characters could die.
JKR was talking about the change's she made to the last chapter of
book 7 that she originally wrote more than 15 years ago. She said
2 that she had originally decided to let live will now die and one
that she had originally decided to kill will now live;
And since she has only now decided whom the three affected characters
will be, it is utterly pointless to look in the books for clues. The
two that will die have been portrayed as certain survivors, and the one
that will be spared has been portrayed as a victim of the war. But even
that isn't certain, as too many of even the major characters have been
left deliberately (or so I believe) 'in the open'.
Let's just forget about this pointless discussion -- we'll learn soon
enough, and until then there is nothing but mindless name-calling to
the speculations.
Hey Troels - Welcome Back! I haven't seen your posts in qhite a
while, and I actually missed the insight that you provided for myself
into the HP series.

WIth that being said, I tend to think that it will be Fred & George
who were slated to live, but are now going to die. Why? JKR said
that people would be disappointed... and my interpretation of this is
that for this disappointment to occur, the deaths have to be from the
side of "Good". No one will be saddened by the deaths of Voldemort,
Snape, LeStrange, or any other DE. And I honestly don't think that
the demise of Percy Weasley would cause too many tears aside of his
mother's to be shed.

- Chip

"Ignorance is bliss, and we're in Nirvana." - C. Stobb
Troels Forchhammer
2006-07-10 22:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip Stobb
On 4 Jul 2006 20:52:35 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
<snip & rearrange>
Post by Chip Stobb
Hey Troels - Welcome Back!
Thanks -- just for a short bit, though, while the summer holiday allows
enough time for my vices ;)
Post by Chip Stobb
I haven't seen your posts in qhite a while, and I actually missed
the insight that you provided for myself into the HP series.
Thank you for the kind words.
Post by Chip Stobb
Post by Troels Forchhammer
Let's just forget about this pointless discussion -- we'll learn
soon enough, and until then there is nothing but mindless
name-calling to the speculations.
WIth that being said, I tend to think that it will be Fred &
George who were slated to live, but are now going to die. Why?
Yes, why?
Post by Chip Stobb
JKR said that people would be disappointed...
A lot of people were disappointed about Cedric's death in GoF -- 'Was
it just that? After all that hype?' seemed a common reaction >:->

Just to point out that disappointment doesn't always mean the same
thing to everybody ;)
Post by Chip Stobb
and my interpretation of this is that for this disappointment
to occur, the deaths have to be from the side of "Good".
Even accepting this basis for 'disappointed', there are several more
characters that everybody (or so nearly everybody as to make no
difference to me) agree are good -- starting from the the most obvious
you have Harry, Hermione, Ginny, Ron, Neville, Luna, McGonagall,
Flitwick, Seamus, Dean, Lupin, Charlie, Bill, Hagrid, Moody and
doubtlessly others as well. Why none of these? Are all these destined
to certainly die (which would be the only way to be discounted among
those whom Rowling did /not/ intend previously to kill off), or is
there some other reasons to point a finger at the twins?

And then we can get into the whole issue of the group of characters
whose demise will bring sadness in some camps and joy in other (Snape
is probably the most prominent example, but Percy, Cho, Slughorn and a
few other ambiguous characters might also qualify).

The very important point is that the two characters in question are
some that she had not intended to kill off. If you had, before this,
thought that the twins might be lost cases, then that is a good reason
only to say that they are /not/ the two she referred to (that doesn't
mean that they will live -- only that she didn't change her mind from
live to die on them).

Guessing which characters she could mean, you should start by looking
at those you thought would live, and while trying to twist your brain
around to look at it backwards, you have to second-guess Rowling, while
she is doing her very best to third-guess you . . .

Basically this is why I think it is pointless -- there is no way to get
at this analytically, and there is nothing whatsoever to make any
guesses educated.


That being said, it is still possible to discuss the survival chances
of each character, but leaving aside this latest nonsensical[1]
statement from Rowling.

[1] In the sense that the information is entirely useless to us.
Post by Chip Stobb
No one will be saddened by the deaths of Voldemort, Snape,
LeStrange, or any other DE.
I am sure that the deaths of both Snape and Draco will upset some fans.

And the fact that you, I or anyone else will not regret the death of
e.g. Bellatrix Lestrange doesn't mean that she will not die -- all that
the interview tells us is that two people whom Rowling had hitherto
intended to let live will now be killed off, and that there will be
deaths that Rowling judges will upset readers. Though it is, perhaps,
implied, it is not stated outright that the two characters are also
actual main characters (Rowling's answer avoids being affirmative, and
is couched in general terms. Normally I'd say that an implication is
enough with Rowling, but who knows if she has been weighing her words
with unusual care this time).

But even so, Rowling also considered, IRRC, Cedric Diggory a main
character . . .
Post by Chip Stobb
And I honestly don't think that the demise of Percy Weasley would
cause too many tears aside of his mother's to be shed.
Well, my (low) opinion about the Molly Weasley as a literary character
is on record here, so I'd better not comment ;)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)
pooter
2006-07-02 21:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.

Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Magic_Mom
2006-07-02 23:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.

M_m
drusilla
2006-07-02 23:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
The Magic Engineer
2006-07-03 02:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
But in that instant he was killed, was he really? I mean, he blocked
it before, and wizards/witches have gone into trances, and I'm
sure that they have spells to fake death... Maybe Harry made a
Horcrux?

Maybe Harry made himself into a Horcrux? Then when he died, the
Horcrux kicked in to keep him alive, and now he's just recouperating
somewhere?

(before someone jumps at this, I'M KIDDING...)

TME
w***@yahoo.com
2006-07-03 16:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Magic Engineer
Post by drusilla
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
But in that instant he was killed, was he really? I mean, he blocked
it before, and wizards/witches have gone into trances, and I'm
sure that they have spells to fake death... Maybe Harry made a
Horcrux?
Maybe Harry made himself into a Horcrux? Then when he died, the
Horcrux kicked in to keep him alive, and now he's just recouperating
somewhere?
(before someone jumps at this, I'M KIDDING...)
TME
LOL...The way this group is going lately, it's a good thing you added
your remark at the end!

Cassie
The Magic Engineer
2006-07-04 02:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Magic Engineer
Post by drusilla
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
But in that instant he was killed, was he really? I mean, he blocked
it before, and wizards/witches have gone into trances, and I'm
sure that they have spells to fake death... Maybe Harry made a
Horcrux?
Maybe Harry made himself into a Horcrux? Then when he died, the
Horcrux kicked in to keep him alive, and now he's just recouperating
somewhere?
(before someone jumps at this, I'M KIDDING...)
TME
LOL...The way this group is going lately, it's a good thing you added
your remark at the end!

Cassie

Yes, it is, isn't it? Thanks for reading all the way through, Cassie.
I appreciate it and toss many kudos your way. I need to educate the
masses on my humor and it's many facets.

Funny thing is, I posted here before and got little to no response.
I post once after being gone for months on a topic where I do a
late-night rant and suddenly the whole group is drawing battle plans
to invade my neighborhood and burn down my place.

(KIDDING, people. My style, remember?)

I just wish I would be known for the other posts, and not the ones
that incite riots. Oh well!

TME
Thom Madura
2006-07-03 17:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Magic Engineer
Post by drusilla
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
But in that instant he was killed, was he really? I mean, he blocked
it before, and wizards/witches have gone into trances, and I'm
sure that they have spells to fake death... Maybe Harry made a
Horcrux?
Maybe Harry made himself into a Horcrux? Then when he died, the
Horcrux kicked in to keep him alive, and now he's just recouperating
somewhere?
(before someone jumps at this, I'M KIDDING...)
TME
Actually - it was Toon that made Harry into a Horcrux but nice try
The Magic Engineer
2006-07-04 02:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thom Madura
Post by The Magic Engineer
Post by drusilla
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
But in that instant he was killed, was he really? I mean, he blocked
it before, and wizards/witches have gone into trances, and I'm
sure that they have spells to fake death... Maybe Harry made a
Horcrux?
Maybe Harry made himself into a Horcrux? Then when he died, the
Horcrux kicked in to keep him alive, and now he's just recouperating
somewhere?
(before someone jumps at this, I'M KIDDING...)
TME
Actually - it was Toon that made Harry into a Horcrux but nice try
Toon said Harry into his own Horcrux?
Ok then, Toon, my apologies for not giving credit.

TME
drusilla
2006-07-04 02:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Magic Engineer
Post by Thom Madura
Actually - it was Toon that made Harry into a Horcrux but nice try
Toon said Harry into his own Horcrux?
Ok then, Toon, my apologies for not giving credit.
TME
Hold on... Toon created a Horcrux with Harry Potter!?
David
2006-07-06 23:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Magic Engineer
Toon said Harry into his own Horcrux?
Ok then, Toon, my apologies for not giving credit.
TME
Oh, my God! Toon is a horcrux? Then does that mean that all the
posters here are horcruxes? Maybe I'm a horcrux. That would explain a
lot.
pooter
2006-07-03 20:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Post by Magic_Mom
Post by pooter
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
This crap is going to go on for the rest of our natural lives, isn't it.
Still, I guess it makes a change from whether it is the red or blue
teapot that is a horcrux. :-)
Naahhh.. only until the book finally comes out.
M_m
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
LOL!
DaveD
2006-07-03 20:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by drusilla
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
Ah, but which "he"? Was it actually Neville who was killed because his aim
was so poor, he AKed himself in the foot (and into oblivion)... :-P

DaveD
drusilla
2006-07-03 21:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaveD
Post by drusilla
Then, will have another kind of crap... (like, if Harry's dead, all the
ppl trying to convince us how is he alive, even when JKR wrote: "Neville
shot AK at Harry, and he was instantly killed")
Ah, but which "he"? Was it actually Neville who was killed because his aim
was so poor, he AKed himself in the foot (and into oblivion)... :-P
DaveD
He He... well, thanks for providing with some practice for my patience,
as in a year from now, I will be needing it as its best. All of us...
DM
2006-07-03 00:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
Hagrid might die, but I don't think we'll be that lucky. Remember, his
giant ancestry makes him nearly immune to most magical attacks and I
doubt we'll see many Muggle-type deaths.

Snape will die protecting Harry from Voldemort.

Lupin will die taking out Fenrir.

And I think one of the Weasleys. I doubt JKR would take out one of the
kids, and killing off Molly would be far too cruel. I imagine Harry will
end up confined in a dungeon somewhere. It will be Arthur who is killed
while battling beside other Aurors who are trying to free Harry.

I think Harry might possibly be the one who gets the reprieve.
--
DM
---

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
w***@yahoo.com
2006-07-03 16:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DM
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
Hagrid might die, but I don't think we'll be that lucky. Remember, his
giant ancestry makes him nearly immune to most magical attacks and I
doubt we'll see many Muggle-type deaths.
Snape will die protecting Harry from Voldemort.
Lupin will die taking out Fenrir.
And I think one of the Weasleys. I doubt JKR would take out one of the
kids, and killing off Molly would be far too cruel. I imagine Harry will
end up confined in a dungeon somewhere. It will be Arthur who is killed
while battling beside other Aurors who are trying to free Harry.
I think Harry might possibly be the one who gets the reprieve.
--
DM
---
,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-
dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort
HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
I'm going to go with Snape & Hagrid (but not necessarily that these
were the two new characters she mentioned) as well as others that I
haven't really given serious thought to yet.

I mentioned to someone that, IMO, I can't see how she could reconcile a
workable plot in which Snape lives. I mean, yes, he could go to Azkaban
or yes, he could get an Order of Merlin when it comes to light that he
really was working for DD, etc., but I don't see either of those
scenarios playing out well. Another reason (albeit a thin one) is that
Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane are the only two actors with whom Jo
had pertinent conversations about insight into their characters.
Thom Madura
2006-07-03 18:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@yahoo.com
Post by DM
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
Hagrid might die, but I don't think we'll be that lucky. Remember, his
giant ancestry makes him nearly immune to most magical attacks and I
doubt we'll see many Muggle-type deaths.
Snape will die protecting Harry from Voldemort.
Lupin will die taking out Fenrir.
And I think one of the Weasleys. I doubt JKR would take out one of the
kids, and killing off Molly would be far too cruel. I imagine Harry will
end up confined in a dungeon somewhere. It will be Arthur who is killed
while battling beside other Aurors who are trying to free Harry.
I think Harry might possibly be the one who gets the reprieve.
--
DM
---
,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-
dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort
HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
I'm going to go with Snape & Hagrid (but not necessarily that these
were the two new characters she mentioned) as well as others that I
haven't really given serious thought to yet.
I mentioned to someone that, IMO, I can't see how she could reconcile a
workable plot in which Snape lives. I mean, yes, he could go to Azkaban
or yes, he could get an Order of Merlin when it comes to light that he
really was working for DD, etc., but I don't see either of those
scenarios playing out well. Another reason (albeit a thin one) is that
Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane are the only two actors with whom Jo
had pertinent conversations about insight into their characters.
Based on the way JKR made her statement - I believe the "two" she is
talking about are sympathetic characters (IE - Good Guys). Unless Snape
does something to redeem himself (I am in that camp though) - I doubt
she was talking about him. While I believe that a number of Death
Eaters will die (plus V himself of course) - I really don't think that
is what JKR was talking about.

Hargrid would be a sympathetic character - but if he dies - what will
happen to his brother? That would create an open story line that JKR
would have to fill. I think she has enough of them already.

One of them will is likely to be a weasley man - but not Ron. JKR has
set us up for a Wedding that leads me to believe that it will not happen
so that is my first guess.

Another will likely come from the DA's or the OOP - not Neville (WHo has
already been sort of identified by JKR as the next Herbology teacher).

Interestingly - I believe it will be SNAPE who was supposed to die and
will not -


Now - the real question is -
WIll we ever really know the truth?
Will JKR announce which ones were which?

Unless she comes out and tells us - we will still be guessing this even
after the book comes out.
brisingamen
2006-07-12 17:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thom Madura
Now - the real question is -
WIll we ever really know the truth?
Will JKR announce which ones were which?
Unless she comes out and tells us - we will still be guessing this even
after the book comes out.
Folks -- JKR is setting us up. In the lead up to OotP, she kept on and
on about how dear the character she planned to kill was to her, and
then -- in every other bloody chapter of the book -- we were treated to
attacks on every major 'good' character. By the time she got to the
fight at the Ministry of Magic the scene with the character's death
lost ALL of its impact.

Frankly,I'm not buying into the current version of the "let's keep the
readers in a frenzy" scheme -- it adds nothing to my reading pleasure.

The only thing I'll predict about the plot of Book 7, is that if JKR
kills Harry, I will throw away all my copies of the books, and I won't
go to the remaining films.

Lori Coulson
Kenny
2006-07-12 19:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by brisingamen
Folks -- JKR is setting us up. In the lead up to OotP, she kept on and
on about how dear the character she planned to kill was to her, and
then -- in every other bloody chapter of the book -- we were treated to
attacks on every major 'good' character. By the time she got to the
fight at the Ministry of Magic the scene with the character's death
lost ALL of its impact.
Frankly,I'm not buying into the current version of the "let's keep the
readers in a frenzy" scheme -- it adds nothing to my reading pleasure.
I'm with you, JKR is kind of playing up the "who will die this time" card
and it is becomming kind of lame. I don't mind the threads where where we
speculate who might live or die and why, but for JKR to sit there and say "I
killed two i didn't intend to and gave one a reprieve," is a little much.
She could just say "Yes, some are going to die and that sucks, but it's part
of the cost to defeat LV," and then that's it. Tell us after we've read
the book that she killed two she initially didn't intend to, gave whoever a
reprieve, and why. Then we could debate if the book is better because of it
or not.

Personally, I believe a whole bunch of people are going to die right at the
beginning of the seventh book because LV is going to fly overhead on a broom
and drop an Avada Kedavera bomb right in the middle of Fleur's and Bill's
wedding. That way, the survivors will be very motivated.
Post by brisingamen
The only thing I'll predict about the plot of Book 7, is that if JKR
kills Harry, I will throw away all my copies of the books, and I won't
go to the remaining films.
I won't go that far, but when I read the books, in the back of my mind I'll
be thinking, "Man, did this kid's life suck."


Kenny
Magic_Mom
2006-07-12 21:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny
I won't go that far, but when I read the books, in the back of my mind I'll
be thinking, "Man, did this kid's life suck."
Kenny
Precisely why she just cannot kill him off.

M_m
David Sueme
2006-07-04 08:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Harry sat in the chair next to the wizarding radio and accepted a
butterbeer. "Bill, I'm looking forward to seeing my godson..." CRASH
- the cottage's front door imploded into the main room and Lord
Voldemort, eyes blazing red and wand in hand strode in. Instantly
Harry and Bill Weasly leapt to thier feet, wands whipped out. "Avada
Kedavra" each bellowed and beams of bright green light impacted
Voldemort on his chest. The red eyes dimmed and Lord Voldemort swayed
on his feet - for a moment. Then the Dark Lord steadied, the crimson
glow returned to the slitlike eyes which he fixed on Harry Potter.

"It is true, Chosen One." Voldemort chuckled! "You were to be the
last Horcrux. But the spell rebounded, and instead I am my own last
Horcrux. I can be killed - but like a Pheonix I am immediately
revived. No known Wizard's spell, or muggle 'technology' (here
Voldemort's voice was sneering) can permanently damage me. I wish
Headmaster Snape luck with his experiments!" Then the Dark Lord aimed
his wand at Harry Potter and uttered the killing curse. Harry saw a
flash of green light - then his vision went red and then black. Potter
crumpled to the floor. Harry Potter was dead.

Ignoring the stunned Bill Weasly, Voldemort blasted open the door to
the smaller bedroom. Inside he found Fleur Weasly holding her son -
Harry's godson - in her arms. The Dark Lord leveled his wand. "Avada
Kedavra" he whispered and the bolt of green light torched from the tip
of his wand, again. But it impacted squarely in the middle of Fleur's
back as she spun to shield her child. Fleur's last act was to cradle
the month-old boy's head in her hands as she too crumpled and fell.
Fleur Delacour was dead.

Stepping over Fleur's limp body Lord Voldemort aimed his wand downward
towards the infant on the floor. "Avada Kedavra" he spoke yet a third
time, there was a blinding flash of green and Voldemort vanished. Harry
Potter's godson - whose first adventure you can soon read about in the
upcoming "Louis Weasly and the Magnificant Mountain" (Year One at
Hogwarts) would also come of age sporting a lucrative scar.
zoltan47
2006-07-04 20:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
Listen to the interview. What she said was that she changed the
live/die status of three characters. One that was going to die will
now live, and two that were going to live will now die.

The closer a character is to Harry or the important they are, the more
their live/die status impacts the ending and therefore the entire
story. Therefore, logically, the three characters she mentioned are
NOT main/major characters, e.g., Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Molly,
Snape, Voldemort. There are others that may qualify, but those ones
are major enough that their status is pretty much set in stone.

This does not mean they will definitely live or die, only that whether
they live or die could not change at this point in the story without
fundamentally changing the ending of the story.
JM
2006-07-09 19:08:50 UTC
Permalink
In Goblet of Fire, Malfoy turns to Hermione and Ron and says, "You two will
be next. Mudbloods and Muggle lovers will be the first to go".

I hope that was not a clue and just a remark made my the little slimeball.

jm


.
Richard Eney
2006-07-10 11:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by JM
In Goblet of Fire, Malfoy turns to Hermione and Ron and says, "You two will
be next. Mudbloods and Muggle lovers will be the first to go".
I hope that was not a clue and just a remark made my the little slimeball.
Well, unless DD was a muggleborn, he was wrong.

=Tamar
JM
2006-07-10 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Hermione is the mudblood and I think he referred to Ron as the Muggle lover
didn't he? Or at least his dad is a muggle lover.
Post by Richard Eney
Post by JM
In Goblet of Fire, Malfoy turns to Hermione and Ron and says, "You two will
be next. Mudbloods and Muggle lovers will be the first to go".
I hope that was not a clue and just a remark made my the little slimeball.
Well, unless DD was a muggleborn, he was wrong.
=Tamar
Kish
2006-07-10 16:29:30 UTC
Permalink
HBP spoilers.

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1
Post by Richard Eney
Post by JM
In Goblet of Fire, Malfoy turns to Hermione and Ron and says, "You two will
be next. Mudbloods and Muggle lovers will be the first to go".
I hope that was not a clue and just a remark made my the little slimeball.
Well, unless DD was a muggleborn, he was wrong.
Dumbledore was certainly a "Muggle-lover" as the Death Eaters use the
term. However, so is everyone on the Order of the Phoenix side (except
Snape, if he qualifies as being on the Order of the Phoenix side),
almost by definition. Wasn't Draco addressing all three, Harry, Ron,
and Hermione?
Richard Eney
2006-07-11 09:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kish
HBP spoilers.
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Post by Richard Eney
Post by JM
In Goblet of Fire, Malfoy turns to Hermione and Ron and says, "You two will
be next. Mudbloods and Muggle lovers will be the first to go".
I hope that was not a clue and just a remark made my the little slimeball.
Well, unless DD was a muggleborn, he was wrong.
Dumbledore was certainly a "Muggle-lover" as the Death Eaters use the
term. However, so is everyone on the Order of the Phoenix side (except
Snape, if he qualifies as being on the Order of the Phoenix side),
almost by definition.
True, but...
Post by Kish
Wasn't Draco addressing all three, Harry, Ron, and Hermione?
..."you two" weren't next. DD was next. Though Ron almost died, it was
an accident.

=Tamar
Jean Lamb
2006-07-07 02:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troy
Hagrid who makes a nobel sacrifice to save the three in some way
Snape. The question of his true loyalties will be a major issue through the
book and when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
--But of course all Right-Thinking Gryffindors will still be raised to hate
Slytherin anyway, sigh, even if it happens that way. Then again, with
Dumbledore gone, McGonagall might actually make some headway against the
prejudice, though just after a war I wish her all the luck in the world.

Unless, of course, one agrees with certain immature Gryffindors and one
half-giant that Slytherin is the only source of evil in the world.

Allow it to continue, and there won't be much of the Wizarding World
left--it's too small already to sustain itself not counting the casualties
in book 7. Get rid of Slytherin? Ok. Who will be the next house to be hated
instead? (you know there will be one. My candidate is Ravenclaw--you just
can't trust those egg-headed intellectuals who stay awake in History of
Magic).
--
Jean Lamb, ***@charter.net
"Research is hard. Torturing heroes is fun."--Mary Jo Putney
Richard Eney
2006-07-07 10:12:24 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Jean Lamb
Post by Troy
when the show down between Harry and Voldemort comes, Snape will
die proving his loyalty to Harry/Dumbledore
--But of course all Right-Thinking Gryffindors will still be raised to hate
Slytherin anyway, sigh, even if it happens that way. Then again, with
Dumbledore gone, McGonagall might actually make some headway against the
prejudice, though just after a war I wish her all the luck in the world.
It would depend on how many other Slytherins are involved. Draco and
his little gang aren't the whole House.
Post by Jean Lamb
Unless, of course, one agrees with certain immature Gryffindors and one
half-giant that Slytherin is the only source of evil in the world.
Allow it to continue, and there won't be much of the Wizarding World
left--it's too small already to sustain itself not counting the casualties
in book 7. Get rid of Slytherin? Ok. Who will be the next house to be hated
instead? (you know there will be one. My candidate is Ravenclaw--you just
can't trust those egg-headed intellectuals who stay awake in History of
Magic).
Hufflepuff might be - bunch of dunderheads, after all. But you're right,
based on Luna's experience, I'd say the average Ravenclaw can't be trusted.

=Tamar
Jean Lamb
2006-07-08 01:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Jean Lamb
--But of course all Right-Thinking Gryffindors will still be raised to hate
Slytherin anyway, sigh, even if it happens that way. Then again, with
Dumbledore gone, McGonagall might actually make some headway against the
prejudice, though just after a war I wish her all the luck in the world.
It would depend on how many other Slytherins are involved. Draco and
his little gang aren't the whole House.
--But according to Harry et al, they are. How influential do you think Harry
will be in this respect (granted that he lives and kills Voldemort?). How
much will the Ministry bend over to keep him happy, and out of politics,
once he's an Official Hero?
Post by Richard Eney
Post by Jean Lamb
Allow it to continue, and there won't be much of the Wizarding World
left--it's too small already to sustain itself not counting the casualties
in book 7. Get rid of Slytherin? Ok. Who will be the next house to be hated
instead? (you know there will be one. My candidate is Ravenclaw--you just
can't trust those egg-headed intellectuals who stay awake in History of
Magic).
Hufflepuff might be - bunch of dunderheads, after all. But you're right,
based on Luna's experience, I'd say the average Ravenclaw can't be trusted.
=Tamar
--Right. And Luna appears to be the only member of Ravenclaw still involved
with the Trio--Cho broke up with Harry, and her going out with him appears
to be part of the reason she and her friends joined the DA. (Of course,
being indignant over the Quill being used to cover up Umbridge's mistakes
was likely part of it, too.) But few Ravens other than Harry seemed to be
involved once Umbridge was gone. Book 6 seemed to have a much narrower focus
than I'm used to seeing. But Harry didn't mourn Sirius Black or whinge over
being dumped by Cho very much, which I found rather surprising in a boy his
age anyway. I dunno, I guess I'd use the phrase 'lesser affect' for Harry
most of the time in 6.

So Luna has no reason to love her fellow Ravens, and wouldn't want to
protect them if they fell into disfavor (not that I blame her...Flitwick
seems to be one of those absentee Head of Houses, along with McGonagall,
while Snape and Sprout seem to be more involved with their students, just as
a blind guess).
--
Jean Lamb, ***@charter.net
"Research is hard. Torturing heroes is fun."--Mary Jo Putney
*MYSTIC*
2006-07-08 03:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Lamb
--Right. And Luna appears to be the only member of Ravenclaw still involved
with the Trio--Cho broke up with Harry, and her going out with him appears
to be part of the reason she and her friends joined the DA. (Of course,
being indignant over the Quill being used to cover up Umbridge's mistakes
was likely part of it, too.) But few Ravens other than Harry seemed to be
involved once Umbridge was gone. Book 6 seemed to have a much narrower focus
than I'm used to seeing. But Harry didn't mourn Sirius Black or whinge over
being dumped by Cho very much, which I found rather surprising in a boy his
age anyway. I dunno, I guess I'd use the phrase 'lesser affect' for Harry
most of the time in 6.
So Luna has no reason to love her fellow Ravens, and wouldn't want to
protect them if they fell into disfavor (not that I blame her...Flitwick
seems to be one of those absentee Head of Houses, along with McGonagall,
while Snape and Sprout seem to be more involved with their students, just as
a blind guess).
Luna is a power onto herself. She is a Ravenclaw, so she is very
talented at magic.

The term "fey" seems to be appropiate.

A friend of mine asked me what "fey" meant. Since she had been called
that by a friend of her's. I told her that it meant being "strange in a
tragic kind of way."

Am I wrong?
n***@cs.com
2006-07-08 05:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by *MYSTIC*
Luna is a power onto herself. She is a Ravenclaw, so she is very
talented at magic.
The term "fey" seems to be appropiate.
A friend of mine asked me what "fey" meant. Since she had been called
that by a friend of her's. I told her that it meant being "strange in a
tragic kind of way."
Am I wrong?
Maybe not, though their are other possible, but related meanings.

The adjective "fey" is probably related to the noun "fay" (as in Morgan
le Fay). Fay means "fate" or else means fate personified, in the form
of supernatural beings with influence on human destiny (similar to the
nordic Elf (Alf) or the Irish Shee (Sidh)). "Faerie" is the land of
the fates/elves/shees, though it later was applied to the inhabitants
as well, hence "fairy" became the more modern word for "fay". They
were powerful and not necessarily diminutive, potentially beneficial
but by no means harmless.

"Fey" (adjective) can mean:

(1) Doomed to die; or perhaps merely doomed in a less specific sense.
(Archaic or Scottish)

(2) Prognosticating doom or death. (Obsolete).

(3) Strange in a way that suggests contact with or influence from
supernatural or mystical forces (ie. with fays/fairies/faerie); having
the air of one under a doom or a spell; otherworldly; elfin; or
visionary.

The first two above are obviously closely related to the idea of
"fate", while the latter more closely connected with "fairy".
Something along the lines of number 3 seems most likely in a modern
setting. It can be a polite way of telling someone you think they have
gone a little bit crazy.

It is not uncommon for multiple meanings to seem applicable. The
mythical Cassandra was "fey" in all three senses; Trelawney was fey in
at least the latter two. Contact with the faerie world, though
potentially beneficial, was traditionally regarded as extremely
dangerous.
Deevo
2006-07-07 10:24:01 UTC
Permalink
"Jean Lamb" <***@charter.net> wrote in message news:Hhjrg.1521$***@fe06.lga...
<snip>
Post by Jean Lamb
--But of course all Right-Thinking Gryffindors will still be raised to
hate Slytherin anyway, sigh, even if it happens that way. Then again, with
Dumbledore gone, McGonagall might actually make some headway against the
prejudice, though just after a war I wish her all the luck in the world.
Unless, of course, one agrees with certain immature Gryffindors and one
half-giant that Slytherin is the only source of evil in the world.
Allow it to continue, and there won't be much of the Wizarding World
left--it's too small already to sustain itself not counting the casualties
in book 7. Get rid of Slytherin? Ok. Who will be the next house to be
hated instead? (you know there will be one. My candidate is Ravenclaw--you
just can't trust those egg-headed intellectuals who stay awake in History
of Magic).
It's interesting that we really haven't been exposed to many characters from
Slytherin house in the books to date, the only ones who have been genuinely
antagonistic have been Malfoy and his goons Crabbe and Goyle (who would have
likely followed the biggest bully regardless of who he was). The others,
while not being particularly admirable, at least from the point of view of
our Harry coloured glasses have by no means been shown to be evil. Hell,
even Malfoy was acting his part in proceedings at least under partial
duress. Now it's a slightly different story among the adults.

I wonder what we'll get to see of them in book seven...
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...