Comments on: Harry Potter and the Narrative Charnel House

by: Scavella

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:57:19 +0000

Perhaps if The Deathly Hallows were a stand-alone book, rather than then end of an epic, agreement would be easier for me. But it isn’t. While I agree that there isn’t time to mourn the deaths of Tonks and Lupin, of Snape and Fred (whose death shocked me most, I think), Rowling isn’t following the typical single-novel model of tension, drama, etc; she has placed herself explicitly in another tradition, a tradition in which death, even if apparently gratuitous, isn’t pointless, but necessary. Her theme, like that of the Narnia series and Lord of The Rings, is that death that comes in the service of a greater good — the resistance to evil — is noble and right. The point is for people to die fighting.

In its body count, DH isn’t all that different from Lord of the Rings. But neither of those two books can touch Lewis’ The Last Battle, in which every good character dies. Although they are also all changed, and live on in Aslan’s land, the death count there is pretty shocking. And there’s no question that Lewis’ series was written for kids. This is the tradition in which Rowling has placed herself, and it has its own rules of action and drama. I don’t think Rowling has done too badly, though I’m not sure that any of her deaths reach, for me, the high point of the deaths of the Talking Horses in The Last Battle (the most senseless death in any such book, IMO).

So I don’t think that the emphasis on the body count undercut the drama. While it may be numbing, I suspect that is rather the point, as others have said before me.

by: Kathleen Bolton

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:10:52 +0000

Easy there, Caoimhe. You must not be a regular reader of the blog if you don’t know we–and especially me–regard JKR very highly as a storyteller. No one’s disputing that she needed a body count in the last book. I was pointing out that her over-emphasis on the body count–in my opinion only, dear–undercut the drama she was trying to create.

by: Caoimhe

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:55:33 +0000

I can’t agree with your criticism of Deathly Hallows. A number of important characters did die, but the book is based in a war situation, it would be unrealistic if at the end of the book all our favourite characters came away unscathed. I feel that all of the deaths in the book are justified and make sense, it would be ridiculous if JKR didn’t kill off some characters simply because it would upset some readers. Harry Potter was her story which came from her own head and she had to be true to the plot. Also, while a good number of characters do die, many more important characters survive. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Ginny and Neville all live. They are characters who have been present since the very beginning of the series, unlike some of the characters that did die: Tonks, Lupin and Moody.
The Harry Potter books are not books about children for children. They are books about death, and one boy’s battle to save the world. Harry is seventeen in Deathly Hallows, hardly a child. JKR has said that she wrote what she felt and did not aim the books at a certain age group, the publishers decided they would be published as children’s books. I think that these books should be read as they were released, with a year between each book, so that children grow up with Harry, adjusting as he adjusts.
I also feel that the way you have described parts of the books are warped and misleading. Hedwig does not explode, she just dies when hit by a curse, her death represents a definite end to Harry’s childhood. “The mucus pouring from a dying man’s orifices is collected and studied”: Mucus?? This is a completely misleading statement. Snape’s thoughts are collected by Harry at Snape’s request, so that Harry might understand that Snape was protecting him all along. You’re making these statements as though these events were added merely for dramatic effect, when in fact they are key to the book’s plot. “A snake punches out of the neck of an old woman’s rotting cadaver”, yes, because the snake contained part of Voldemort’s soul and he used it in disguise to lure Harry into a trap.

It seems to me that you don’t understand the world of Harry Potter if this is how you perceive the events of Deathly Hallows. Perhaps you should look at the series as what it is, creative fantasy with a complex story line, and not a representation of actual events. If it does not follow convention in the number of characters that die, or the way in which they die, then that is just credit to JKR’s individuality as a writer.

by: Therese Walsh

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:12:50 +0000

I do wish she hadn’t killed so many, but I understand why she did it. It had the feel of uncontrolled chaos, just like in a war, and I suppose JKR needed that to jar the reader out of complacency and understand Harry’s situation keenly. Anything could’ve happened. The safety net of Harry’s childhood, and even the mothering between him and JKR, was over.

Still, lots of sad moments.

by: theamcginnis

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:04:01 +0000

goodness, righteousness and the pureness of intentions can transcend the death. death in and of itself is not evil. a life cut short by villany is evil. hope, bravery and great sacrifice is part of the coinage we pay for resisting the forces of evil

by: Worderella

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:03:59 +0000

I agree with the quick and what I thought needless slaughter of characters. I also understand the argument that we were reading about a war, and needless deaths happen.

I think Rowling will go into more detail about the deaths of favorite characters in her hinted-at Encyclopedia of Potter. I mean, I think she sort of owes it to the Lupin and Tonks fans, especially since she killed off the one couple who just had a baby.

by: Jennifer

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:49:25 +0000

I understand the way she killed off characters, but I wasn’t happy with it. I see that there’s not much of a way she could have *shown* us some character’s deaths, because Harry wasn’t there to see them. But these were some of my favorite characters, and it seemed like the deaths were glossed over in cases. I tore through the book in about 6 hours early Saturday morning, but I always had to stop for a moment to mourn, and I wonder that JK didn’t give us that moment.

by: Amy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:41:23 +0000

I agree. Through all the deaths and all the violence I was able to pretend to know what it is like to be in that kind of war. I really felt that Rowling realized in book seven what she’d been leading up to for six books. I didn’t feel that I had enough time to mourn, but I didn’t feel that Harry did either. That’s a common theme in stories about wars, though- there isn’t time to grieve. You just have to go on and make their sacrifice worth something.

I believe Rowling has been quoted that this was never intended to be a story about children, for children. Remember, before she even began writing the first book, she spent over five years working out the plot for all seven. She knew the last book would be dark.

by: pwstrain

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:08:43 +0000

Not too many. Enough? I’m not sure.
I think she was emphasizing the brutality, futality, and randomness of war. In a war, the body count just goes up and up. In major battles lots of people can die for little or no percieved gain. I was waiting for someone to get hit with “friendly fire”.