Gandalf died and those who read the series had to get through most of The Two Towers to discover he came back.
Frodo lived in pain until he disappeared into the West.
Bilbo went senile.
Stuff happens.
(I think that an author hinting darkly at future (and unpenned) deaths sounds a bit much like hyping the books for sales, but we’ll see how it goes.)
The only complaint I have about Rowling is she needs to **shut the fuck up **with all these spoilers. Just shut up! It’s on the fucking first page of my Yahoo! account and I can’t avoid the damn thing. I like to get my spoilers from the traditional place, ya know, the goddamn book. :mad:
Wow, I guess I was madder than I thought.
Not being snarky: this is a genuine enquiry: I’ve heard of “anymore” being misused in the US on these boards, so I’m prepared to see it out of context, but I honestly have no idea what this adjective is meant to mean.
I hesitate to call Harry Potter “art”, but you can’t ask or expect an “artist” to compromise what they do. JKR writes what she wants to write, and shouldn’t have to put up with people whining that they don’t like that her story’s not fulfilling their optimistic expectations.
I’d have loved to see La Guernica after the SDMB treatment. A few puppies and kitties on the borders just to temper the horse’s eye put out by glass…
Or George Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire”.
That has nothing on The Lions of Al-Rassan, IMHO.
Which brings up another point: kids love tragedy. Why did every fifteen year old girl in America go see Titanic ten times? Why is The Empire Strikes Back a better movie than Return of the Jedi? What explain the popularity of Shel Silverstein and Rohl Dahl and Lemony Snickett? And that doesn’t even get into the animal books . . .Old Yeller, Sounder, The Yearling, Where the Red Fern Grows, Charlotte’s Web.
If you don’t want that ending, that’s fine. If you think the literary weight of the series isn’t up to a tragic end, I can get behind that arguement. But don’t put it in terms of "save the goodness for the sake of the children . . . " Kids can handle tragedy. In fact, they enjoy it exactly like adults do. It’s condesending to suggest otherwise.
I watched the programme in question, and these rumours are going waaay out of control. If there was a hint, it was a much smaller one than is being made out.
Here’s a link to download the video of that interview, if you want to see it yourself. (And yes, the presenters are idiots).
And here’s a transcript of the salient part, thanks to the same site. (R and J are the presenters, JK’s…JK).
But none of that depends remotely on wether or not the main character lives or dies. “Harry Potter might die at the end of the series,” does not rule out the possibility that the ending of the novel will be good, decent, or just. Tragedy is not a negative message. It does not preclude hope. In contrast, I’d say it is a rather necessary component to hope. After all, if everything were perfect, there’d be nothing to hope for, would there?
Wanting any of those things you listed is not childish. Looking for them in Harry Potter is not childish. Throwing a snit because the main character from your favorite book does not have exactly the happy-sunshine-and-lollipops ending you want him to have is profoundly immature. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the transformative effects of great literature, both on the individual and the cultural level. But fan-service does not great literature make, and that’s what the OP is whining about: the possibility that her favorite character might not get the ending she wants him to have, that she won’t get the fan service she wants from Rowling. Well, great literature is like life: it doesn’t always turn out the way you want. And nine times out of ten, that’s what makes it great.
The phrase means "I am cynical these days, " or “I am cynical now,” or “I used to not be cynical, but now I am.”
And it’s not misused. It’s a dialectic usage that happens to not be yours.
It’s an adverb, and it’s properly used in Sattua’s dialect, albeit not so in yours, I’m guessing. At a guess, it’ll be informally acceptable in most American dialects within a few years, max.
If she had definitely said that Harry lives, that would ruin the suspense, and make the experience not as gripping.
I think Snape is dead meat myself - no spoiler box, since I’m usually wrong.
I wish I had a bit of good magic in my world right now.
Harry Potter dies in that one?
Tell it to the following:
Superman
Sherlock Holmes
Willy Loman
Romeo
Juliet
R.P. McMurphy
Paul Baumer
Jurgis Rudkos
You get the idea.
Yes, and he’s not even in it! Up until the part where he dies. It’s horrible!
If we’re guessing, I think Draco’s the character who gets the reprieve and the two who she didn’t intend to die will be Ron + Neville. I think Snape is toast and she planned that all along (and actually I suspect Snape is not exactly Snape, if you know what I mean, but he dies, so to speak.)
And, still speculating, I think Rowling has obviously set Harry & Hermione up for post-grad work + adventures (IE, sequels), although not as a couple. I really think Harry & Ginny will end up together. There’s just so much to tie up in this next book it’s either going to be the size of a bowling ball or some stuff will have to wait for later.
All of the above is sure to be wrong of course. I can’t wait to find out.
Reminds me of my favorite Howard the Duck comic book, titled “Where do you go, what do you do, the night after you’ve saved the Universe?” There wasn’t any big karmic reward for Howard for saving the universe, either.
And my money’s on at least one of Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Ginny dying, maybe two. I think Rowling’s got that ol’ Joss spirit, if you know what I mean.
I’d be shocked if Harry, Ron, or Hermione die. Mostly because that would make a happy ending pretty much impossible, and I doubt Rowling wants to end the series on a melancholy note. I think she’s just trying to keep us wondering.
Count me as a vote for “Rowling may kill off Harry, but it’s far from guarenteed, and any mention at this point counts more as hype than as promise”
Count me also as a vote for “the book can end on a note of hope with potential for future happiness of most concerned or a truly depressing note regardless of whether Harry lives or dies”
And count me as a vote for “I think I’d rather have a book where Harry dies (preferably a nice, sacrificial death and kills off Voldemort in the process) but Hermione and Ron live than a book where Harry lives but one or both of Hermione and Ron die stupid, wasteful deaths”
Finally, count me as a vote for “Let’s wait till the book gets printed before we get too worked up about the contents, OK?”
I wish I had a pony.
Heh. First thing I thought of when I was reading the OP, too…