Greetings!

You know, I also felt that some deaths were very random at first, but I think that’s only because Deathly Hallows is a bit fast-paced (especially compared with Order of the Phoenix). Again, most hardcore Potter-fans would help understanding the deaths here, if only there was one close by… oh wait, there is! Yours truly =). If you will, I’d like to revise some of the deaths that took place in Deathly Hallows and I would be very very flattered if some readers would give me their feedback.

Tonks and Lupin
A huge and obvious clue of Lupin’s death was given since the Marauder’s Map appeared on the series. Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs. Many Potter-fans guessed (correctly) that JKR was giving us the death order in this introduction. This theory was strengthened enormously with Sirius’s death, and later on with Pettigrew’s. The moment Pettigrew died, it became obvious that Lupin would snuff it too, and he did. I found the whole map names-death order relationship very clever. It was yelling us who was going to die, right from book 3.
Tonks was some sort of rebel Auror who Bellatrix wanted to kill so badly, it would have been a disappointment (even for fans) if she (Bellatrix) hadn’t managed to (kill her).
And of course, as Greg says, it was a way to create another orphan because of Voldemort’s war, just like Harry. With the exception that, unlike Harry, Teddy would have lots of people around him who would love him, including his godfather.

Moody’s body
I felt desperately hopeful that Moody would reappear in the end; you know, the tough figure, indestructible and rising again when everybody thought was dead. This hope, of course, was derived from the very fact that they never found his body. I kept telling myself “the eye doesn’t mean anything, he could have dropped it anytime, he’s still alive”. But no.
I think the message JKR tried to send with his body not ever being found is that, war and terrorism are just like that. There are times when you’ll hear horrible things, times when you will witness them, and times when you simply won’t know. His body was lost, nobody ever knew of him. That happens in real life, the tragic and sad Air France plane crash that recently took place demonstrates it. Some bodies you will find, some… you won’t.

Crabbe
Well of course Malfoy wasn’t going to die, he was going to worm his way out of trouble again, just like his father did the first time Voldemort fell. But his minions weren’t going to come out unharmed. It would have been more… let’s toss some cliche words here like “tragic” and “poetic” if both Crabbe and Goyle had died. Draco Malfoy would have been left truly alone and friendless and serve him right, and he would have been more devastated still; he probably would grow up to be an entirely decent person, quite unlike his father. Now THAT would have been unacceptable for us readers, Malfoy had to keep some nastiness in him. So she only kills one (I think the effect would have been exactly the same if she had killed Goyle). It’s a death and Malfoy really feels it, but he still has Goyle, he’s not all alone, so he keeps some of his horrible self (as proved when he yells at the death eaters that he’s “one of them”).

Fred Weasley
This one really got me, because I didn’t expect any of the twins to die. But I think that it was the most… viable solution.
You see, obviously not every Weasley was going to survive (Mrs. Weasley’s fears were founded). But Mr. Weasley couldn’t die, he had already been given a reprieve in book 5; Mrs. Weasley, I don’t know why, but I just never saw her dying… and I was right, though I have not a firm reason to back this hunch. Bill had just married and he, like Mr. Weasley, had already suffered his own aftermath (Some would say that this would also apply for Moody and he needn’t had died, but Moody’s scars, eye and leg were aftermaths from the first war, so… anyway, highly debatable, as everything in the Potter world). Ginny wouldn’t die, as stated in your article. Neither would Ron (again, your article makes the reasons clear). Percy, the repented son is too much of a poetic example to waste (parable of the prodigal son), so he wouldn’t die; besides, he gets furious with Fred’s death, so he also becomes an avenger. So who’s left? The twins. I don’t know if George’s death would have had the same effect (I think it would, but JKR explained something about Fred being just a tiny bit more reckless… besides, (again) George had already suffered some aftermath with his ear.

Snape
Oh boy… I’m going to keep this one short, because my comment is already too long… and I think I’d need at least three pages to say everything I have to say about Snape.
“Poor Severus”, as Dumbledore said. I think, for dramatic effects, he had no reason to die (for plot effects, of course he was a goner). I think he could have lived, unlike Hedwig (She had to go because she was the last remainder of Harry’s innocence and childhood), unlike Dobby (he had to go because it was the perfect culmination to his life: a hero’s death, saving his very own hero, Harry Potter), unlike Bathilda Bagshot (the lure for knowledge in Godric’s Hollow). He could have died and still explained everything to Harry. But of course, there was Voldemort’s ignorance… it really was a shocking scene when Nagini killed Snape, not only because seeing a snake kill a man is disturbing enough, but also (as Harry reflects) WHY it happened. I think it was the very last and perfect example of how ruthless and evil Voldemort can be. “Just for a wand. Just because you’re there, standing in the way between me and the perfect mastering of this wand. I don’t care that you have served me so long and so efficiently, I don’t care you destroyed my enemy Dumbledore. This is something I want, so I destroy you.” Pure evil!

Voldemort
Well of course she wasn’t going to let Voldemort live (not even like Grindelwald). First of all, that would have left space for an eight book and she didn’t want one. Second of all, it would have been a mess, even worse than the mess humanity already is. He had to die because of symbolism. We see it everywhere. What difference would have Voldemort made if he had no followers? If he was completely alone? She exemplifies, with Voldemort, the power a person can get because other people allow them to. It is a powerful message that is still beyond my understanding, the damage a single person can do because he/she is able to persuade many others.

Anyway, I really enjoyed your article, of course there is much more to say about it, but I think I’ll stop here… for the sake of sanity, mostly =P
Greetings!

One of the appeals of the books was the complicated backstory. To me, its a hallmark of a well organized series when an interesting, though at the time, insignificant detail from one book turns out to be an important part of the story. It ties all the stories together into one story.

Ditto with the overly complicated back story for Albus Dumbledore.

I actually felt that this was very important to the story. As this book was Harry’s final transition into adulthood it was important for him to question his mentor. One of the major aspects of growing up is realizing that the world isn’t black or white, good or bad. With the back story of Dumbledore we were able to see Harry start to realize that Dumbledore wasn’t a saint. At first he thought this was incredibly important and that if Dumbledore wasn’t perfect maybe he shouldn’t follow his advice.

But as the book went on Harry made the transition from childlike, “He did bad things he must be bad” to the adult, “He did bad things, but he also did good things.” Harry reached that point where he could accept that Dumbledore was human, not perfect, but not pure evil. He learned to judge based on actions AND intent, not just one or the other.

To me it reminded me of when I first started really digging into history. I learned all this bad stuff about historical figures. At first I was disillusioned. But as I learned more and grew up some, I realized that they weren’t the heroes we had been taught they were, but nor were the monsters. They were people. They did some questionable things but also did some really good things. They don’t need to be idolized but nor do they deserve to be villianized.

The other questionable tactic Rowling uses is her excessive killing off of characters.

I thought that this was important…up until a point. Killing Hedwig and Mad-Eye right at the beginning set the tone for the book, No One is Safe! Anything Could Happen! That feeling started to abate when no one else died for awhile but the torturing of Hermione and killing of Dobby I think reignited it.

As for the deaths of Lupin, Tonks, Fred, Crabbe….I dunno. In away they were kind of routine, lacked emotion. But at the same time were necessary. This was suppose to be a major battle. The idea that everyone would come through unscathed is just silly. I really don’t know how you could do it where the deaths had more meaning without shifting the focus of the story to be on that person at each death.

The other thing that made me choke up a little (in a good way) was Kreacher leading the house-elfs into battle at the end. Don’t know why.

You mean like offing Hedwig? Killing Lupin and Tonks offstage? Greyback not devouring Hermione at the first opportunity?

I really liked this book, but as you say, it was not without disappointments.

The Lexicon has a fairly good timeline, which I think was originally based on Nearly Headless Nick’s death party (his 500th, and he was supposed to have been killed in 1492). However, there are apparently a lot of contradictions even within that timeline; days of the week don’t match up with dates exactly. My guess is that the first book took place in the “then” of the writing (didn’t she start around 1990?) and she stuck with that even when some books took longer to write.

(And anybody else find it peculiar that Mad-Eye Moody’s body was never found?)

Yes. I was sure he’d turn up alive later on.