Overboard?
With the last Harry Potter film less than 2 weeks away, I find myself thinking back on the book that the movie is adapted from. In particular, my mind is mulling over all of the deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I wonder why? What was her point?
I have spoken to a couple people about it. My mother thinks she sold out. My friend Virginia thinks JK Rowling was trying to add meat to the series that the rest of the novels lacked.
Both points are valid and are probably true. However, I think there is more that she was trying to do. I believe that Rowling was trying to show the horrors of war and how it affects everyone directly or indirectly involved. Teddy lost both parents. The Weasley's lost a son and brother. Harry lost his owl - both a pet and a means to communicate with the wizarding world.
I do wonder the point of all the deaths. Was she uninspired by these characters and ran out of storylines, thus she felt that the only thing left was to kill them? This seems likely because many of the characters floundered through the last book, except for Lupin who was becoming a father and freaking out and there was a lot of juicy storylines to follow for him. Was she trying to protect her character creations by killing them off so no one could write a novel about them? I don't think so because she seems to support the fanfics Harry Potter fans have written.
There were too many deaths. The passing of all the beloved characters overshadowed the plot. I can see the point of some of the deaths. Dobby died a hero - he saved Harry and his friends. Fred's death united his family who had become broken due to opposing political and lifestyle viewpoints. But, I can't see the reason for Snape's death. I think he would've given Harry the memory without being on a deathbed. Tonks and Remus didn't need to die either - their passing was pointless and left a child without his parents as well as Harry without any ties to his father. I'm not even sure the reason for Hedwig's death. All in all, I think she went overboard with the deaths.
What do you all think, my readers? Please, post in the comments below. I love hearing from you.
I have spoken to a couple people about it. My mother thinks she sold out. My friend Virginia thinks JK Rowling was trying to add meat to the series that the rest of the novels lacked.
Both points are valid and are probably true. However, I think there is more that she was trying to do. I believe that Rowling was trying to show the horrors of war and how it affects everyone directly or indirectly involved. Teddy lost both parents. The Weasley's lost a son and brother. Harry lost his owl - both a pet and a means to communicate with the wizarding world.
I do wonder the point of all the deaths. Was she uninspired by these characters and ran out of storylines, thus she felt that the only thing left was to kill them? This seems likely because many of the characters floundered through the last book, except for Lupin who was becoming a father and freaking out and there was a lot of juicy storylines to follow for him. Was she trying to protect her character creations by killing them off so no one could write a novel about them? I don't think so because she seems to support the fanfics Harry Potter fans have written.
There were too many deaths. The passing of all the beloved characters overshadowed the plot. I can see the point of some of the deaths. Dobby died a hero - he saved Harry and his friends. Fred's death united his family who had become broken due to opposing political and lifestyle viewpoints. But, I can't see the reason for Snape's death. I think he would've given Harry the memory without being on a deathbed. Tonks and Remus didn't need to die either - their passing was pointless and left a child without his parents as well as Harry without any ties to his father. I'm not even sure the reason for Hedwig's death. All in all, I think she went overboard with the deaths.
What do you all think, my readers? Please, post in the comments below. I love hearing from you.
Comments
Post a Comment