December 06, 2005

Will Harry Die?

One British paper is reporting that Harry Potter may die at the end of Book 7.

HARRY Potter may die in the next book in the series because author JK Rowling wants to kill him off, it was claimed last night.

Actor Jim Dale - the voice of the teenage wizard in the US audio books - believes the seventh and final instalment will spell the end for Harry.

He made the astonishing claim after meeting with the writer to discuss his characterisation of the parts.

The revelation will shock millions of die-hard Potter fans.

He said: "She's lived with Harry Potter so long she really wants to kill him off." Predictions about the fate of Harry in the seventh book have enthralled millions worldwide.

No name or publication date have yet been released, although it is expected by early 2007 at the latest.

I would hope that Rowling has the sense not to kill off her hero. Conan Doyle tried that, throwing Sherlock Holmes into the falls with Moriarty, only to contrive his return in the face of popular outrage. The boy wizard has captured the public imagination like no other fictional character in my lifetime – I would hope that Rowling would leave open the possibility of some sequel by letting Harry survive. Even if there is no sequel, the very act of allowing a “happily ever after” ending will keep alive the series’ underlying theme of home in the face of adversity.

On a ligheter (?) note, Captain Ed offers some insights into how the book might end in the hands of an author other than JK Rowling.

On the other hand, we could also explore what others might do to justify Harry's death. Suppose, for example, that Rowling let Howard Dean write the last volume. We could then get treated to Voldemort as a misunderstood victim, or perhaps a bad guy but no worse than the arrogant and arbitrary Albus Dumbledore, who tried to control the wizarding world just as surely as Tom Riddle. Why, Dumbledore taught Voldemort almost everything he knew! And the Ministry of Magic spent years denying Voldemort's danger, so obviously they are to blame for all that has happened, not the evil wizard (as if there is any such thing as evil). Harry, therefore, is little more than a fool that chose the wrong horse and got himself killed for it. Good thing, too, because if he survived, he would get blamed for all the deaths that occurred just because he found it necessary to oppose Voldemort.

Now that would make one creepy ending for a delightful series.

Yes, it would be creepy, Ed – But surely no one could be so lacking in moral fiber as to believe that the war between good and evil is lost simply because a modest but rising death toll accompanies each victory over the evildoers.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

1 No kill him off. That evil is inducting our children into witchcraft.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Wed Dec 7 11:33:20 2005 (Vp1bn)

2 Oh, puh-leeez. The books are no more a spiritual threat than Tolkein or Narnia, and have a very Christian world-view.

But then what do I know -- I only have four years of graduate work in Catholic theology and a minor in English lit.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 7 11:56:07 2005 (6D516)

3 Harry Potter? Good freakin' riddance. Is that the garbage what you twits read, savoring every poorly written trashy word?

God save us.

Posted by: King James at Fri Dec 9 12:32:23 2005 (wSbnz)

4 Actually, it is good literature that captivates teh attention of kids. As a former English teacher, I think we need more like it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 9 13:45:06 2005 (dq8ED)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0042, elapsed 0.011 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0081 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]