UNH literature prof: Harry Potter won't die in final book

[drksideofthemoon]

I thought this was a fairly interesting article. Not so much for the Harry Potter angle, but for the insight into writers of very popular books etc...

By LARRY CLOW
Democrat Staff Writer

Actor Daniel Radcliffe appears in a scene from "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," the latest screen version in the famed series of British novels. The movie comes out this summer. The final Potter book also comes out this summer, with a project publication date on July 21.

DURHAM — Harry Potter's days may be numbered.

J.K. Rowling, author of the popular fantasy series about the boy wizard and his battle with the evil Lord Voldemort, announced Thursday that the final book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," will be released on July 21.

And Rowling has a more ominous warning: two main characters will die before the series ends.

But James Krasner, a professor of British literature at the University of New Hampshire, believes Harry will ultimately live to tell another tale.

Why?

Because "good has to win."

"Certain art forms are meant to fulfill expectations, to give gratification," Krasner said. "If you read a romance novel and the lovers don't get together in the end, you're not interested."

Krasner said Rowling's threat to kill off at least two main characters in the final book is a way of "taking control" of her creations. It's not uncommon for authors whose characters have become wildly popular to engage in a tug-of-war with readers over who the characters belong to, he said.

AP photo J.K. ROWLING, author of the Harry Potter books, has said two main characters will die before the series ends. A University of New Hampshire professor doubts either of the deaths will be Harry.

While Rowling is Harry's literary mother, the realm of pop-culture has taken a fierce hold of the wizard and his friends at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The Potter books have sold 300 million copies worldwide. Four of the books have been adapted into films by Warner Bros., with a fifth film, based on "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," scheduled to hit theaters in July. The books have inspired toys, games, food items and even a musical genre known as "wizard rock."

That kind of popularity makes authors want to reclaim their characters, and Rowling isn't the first to make such threats, according to Krasner — when Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books became too popular, the author tired of the character and sent him to his death. That tradition continues today in other forms of serialized fiction like soap operas, Krasner said.

"With contemporary television series, fans have a lot of impact on what's going to happen," he said.

But Harry Potter fans needn't worry, at least according to Krasner. He described Rowling as "very gracious to her fans," and said she understands that Harry Potter is now culturally important.

The Potter fan base is huge and is "very affectionate" toward the characters. Krasner knows this first-hand — his prediction that Harry's friend Neville Longbottom would die in book six "set off a firestorm" in the on-line fan community.

"It created a lot of argument and consternation," he said. "People are very devoted to the stories."

Killing the boy wizard would also be failure in terms of writing and storytelling, Krasner said. Genres like fantasy or action/adventure require good to triumph over evil, and Harry needs to live in order to fulfill those expectations.

"If you take your kid to see "Shrek" and Shrek ends up being killed in the end, you don't come out saying, 'What an intriguing work of art.' You say, 'I'm really mad!'" he said. "Certain art forms are meant to fulfill, to give gratification."

Whether Harry falls in battle with Voldemort or lives to cast another spell, Krasner believes the wizard's place in pop culture is firmly secured.

"(The series) is very well written and has a certain amount of depth to it," he said. In another 50 years, Krasner wouldn't be surprised if the Potter books sat alongside "Charlotte's Web," "Treasure Island," and "The Lord of the Rings" on children's book shelves.

But if Harry doesn't die, what will be his ultimate fate? Krasner isn't sure, but hopes that "The Deathly Hallows" will be Harry's last adventure.

"One of the most important things a writer needs to know how to do is stop," he said. Rowling introduced a new plot device in book six that suggests the characters may return in a new series.

"Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. One of the strengths of the series is the way it's structured around the school year. She's always promised us this is the last one, but we'll see."

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Unfortunately, it won't be a Weasley who dies, either. Pity. I hate those little flee-bags.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Don't underrate JK Rowling

Unfortunately, it won't be a Weasley who dies, either. Pity. I hate those little flee-bags.

It's easy to under-rate JK Rowling. It's also a mistake - she is an exceptional story teller, and to maintain a tight plot over a narrative as long as Harry Potter is one hell of an achievement.

Krasner may be right about his conclusion, I don't know. But he's wrong about his argument, because one thing we know about the Harry Potter series is that the last chapter of book seven was what was written first. The end has been predetermined since before the first book was published. One of the obvious possible ends is that Potter and Voldemort kill each other. I doubt it. Harry is Dumbledore's spiritual heir, and seems to me destined to become headmaster (although probably not by the end of book seven, unless as an epilogue). All through the books Potter and Voldemort have been developed as mirrors of each other in a number of important and symbolic ways.

Clearly, in the final encounter with Voldemort there must be representatives of Rowling's four principles. My hunch is that Hermione will represent cleverness (Ravenclaw) despite the fact that isn't her house. Someone must represent ambition (Slytherin), and my hunch is that that will be either Snape (unlikely, because the metaplot is about the preparing of the new generation to take on the challenge from the old) or (more probably) Malfoy, come over to the good side. But it could be Harry himself - we've seen from the beginning that Harry is vulnerable to the temptation of ambition. From the shape of the plot it's my guess that Neville will represent doggedness/persistence, even though he isn't a Hufflepuff. So who represents courage?

The thing we've been shown most clearly about Ron is that he's scared. He's scared of spiders. He's suffers so badly from big-match nerves that he's an uncertain asset to Quiddich team. So he's not an obvious Gryffindor, actually. But equally, he's ultra-unambitious. He's surprised to be made prefect. He's lazy. And he certainly isn't ruthless or devious. So he's not an obvious Slytherin. He's equally not very clever - so he's not going to represent Ravenclaw. And finally, dogged? Persistent? Ron? He's no Hufflepuff. So either, against all my expectations, Ron represents Gryffindor; or he's surplus to plot requirements and could well be for the chop.

Surely it's obvious that Harry represents Gryffindor? Actually, no. As pointed out before, Harry's been shown to be ambitious. He's been shown to be clever. And (ignoring for a moment the gillyweed) he's been shown to be persistent. So Harry may represent a fusion - a best of all principles; in which case Ron may represent Gryffindor - but I confess I don't see it. If it isn't Harry, Ginny is much more probable (and balances the genders better, which I would expect Rowling to do).

So I will not be at all surprised if Ron dies. If he doesn't, I think there is a very high probability that the appalling Percy will finally realise he's backed the wrong horse, and die in some extraordinary feat of redemptive heroism.

Certainly unlikely characters are going to redeem themselves, and I repeat my prediction that one of them will be Malfoy.

 

[3113]

Well, first of all, I'm a little confused as to how anyone can die in a world (aka, the Harry Potter magic world) where anyone can come back as a ghost.

Anyone want to bet that Dumbledore does an Obi Wan Kenobi? "Use the force, Harry!"

Second, predicting what will happen according to genre is ridiculous. Yes, readers of fantasy books expect "good" to win--but that hardly means a main character can't die winning that battle.

Third, the Prof. is predicting according to the fact that Harry Potter books are "children's books"--and, once again, that's a faulty premis. Kids books can end sadly ("Old Yeller" anyone?) and besides, the age range for Harry Potter books has changed significantly from the modest first book which was aimed at about kids age 9-11. At this point, those reading Harry Potter are older. I don't know that 9 year olds are still reading the books because the subsequent ones have gotten so long--and adults have become part of the readership. Hell, the ones who read the first book when it first came out at about age nine or so are now in college! (First book released in 1997...10 years ago!)

But the Prof. does have one thing right about the genre Rowling's writing in...that being the ultra-poplar genre. In that genre the rule is: If some dies, they can always get better.

If she kills him, he'll come back (very much like Sherlock Holmes) whenever Rowling is seduced into writing yet another H.P. book. Trust me, he'll be ressurrected just like Buffy and any other number popular superheroes who have died and been brought back. At worst, he'll show up as a ghost to guide some new kid. That's the way it usually goes.

 

[3113]

It's easy to under-rate JK Rowling. It's also a mistake - she is an exceptional story teller, and to maintain a tight plot over a narrative as long as Harry Potter is one hell of an achievement.

I think it's a mistake to over-rate her as well. It's easy to forgive bad writing in books that you love. I won't go into it at length but she's been in need of a really good and stern editor over the last four books.

 

[neonlyte]

I think it's a mistake to over-rate her as well. It's easy to forgive bad writing in books that you love. I won't go into it at length but she's been in need of a really good and stern editor over the last four books.

Must be awfully difficult to concentrate when you've sold 300 million...

 

[kendo1]

.....

 

[rgraham666]

It damn well better be Harry that dies. I need the marketplace cleared for my character.

 

[neonlyte]

She's doing something right.

There are always those who detract from her achievement, I'm not one of them.

Her achievement is close to astonishing. I cannot begin to imagine how she finds time to concentrate on writing (I understand she is also finishing at least one new novel to be published under a pseudonym) later this year. When the dust settles on HP, I hope Rowling shares something of the process of maintaining the standard she established with the earlier books simultaneously with the escalating merchandising of the HP name.

I also want to learn more of her loathing for Portugal (her former partner was Portuguese) and there are virtually unnoticable snide references to Portugal - usually in the naming of unpleasant things - Salazar Slytherin being the most obvious.

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

I read in an interview with Rowling on one of the fan sites that she would not kill off Harry. She said she didn't wish to be hated that much.

 

[kendo1]

.....

 

[3113]

Must be awfully difficult to concentrate when you've sold 300 million...

Shrug. And Da Vinci code sold like gangbusters as well. If you want, I can give you a list of shitty books that where huge hits. We can, in fact, go all the way back to blockbuster writers like Mrs. Radcliffe back in the early 19th century who out-sold anything written by Jane Austen even though she was a dreadful writer.

I'm sorry, but quanity doesn't equal quality--and sometimes people love things that are embarassingly bad. Feathered haircuts, Disco, bubble dresses, Celestine Prophecies.

So let's not pretend that popularity instantly means that the Harry Potter books rank up there with Shakespeare and Dickens. If that were the case, the most popular girls in school would also be the most saintly and intelligent.

And before you accuse me of bad-mouthing Rowling, let me say, that I've taught Harry Potter in a Kid Lit class and she is very clever in plotting and storyline, etc. She is not a bad writer, and it's good kid lit. I'm not saying otherwise.

What I am saying that when a writer and her books becomes a phenomenon, especially on the first book out...when they hit that Zeigiest and must ride a wave of incredible popularity, deserved or not, the writing can suffer because publishers are more interested in getting the book out on the stands ASAP (and making more millions of dollars) than they are in taking time to give it a good edit and make it as good a story as it can be.

Just the way publishing is.

 

[rgraham666]

If that happens to me I won't whine. Much.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I think it's a mistake to over-rate her as well. It's easy to forgive bad writing in books that you love. I won't go into it at length but she's been in need of a really good and stern editor over the last four books.

Well, atleast with the last one - talk about a rushed job! It was like reading the world's longest fan fic - and not one of the better ones, I might add...

There ARE people out there who would write HP better than JKR herself does these days...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well, atleast with the last one - talk about a rushed job! It was like reading the world's longest fan fic - and not one of the better ones, I might add...

There ARE people out there who would write HP better than JKR herself does these days...

that cracks me up. And it's true. Poor JK... she'll never live up to or live down HP. Isn't that strange!?

But I don't know anyone who hasn't read HP.......

 

[rgraham666]

that cracks me up. And it's true. Poor JK... she'll never live up to or live down HP. Isn't that strange!?

But I don't know anyone who hasn't read HP.......

Uhm. Me.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Uhm. Me.

Really!? I'd recommend them... totally fun! I started reading them to my older kids when they were too young to read whole chapter books by themselves (my god has this thing really been going on THAT long!? ) and got hooked...

 

[cumallday]

Seventh Inning Demise?

A co-worker of mine insisted I read the Harry Potter books so she could finally have someone to talk about the series with at work. I caved in and became a fan (Also why I watch the Amazing Race these days). We both came to the conclusion that Harry must die in the seventh because his scar is the final horcrux and therefore he must martyr himself for the good of the wizarding world. Who knows? I also like to tease my co-worker these days by joking that Neville will finally come out of the closet and profess his love for Ron while Buckbeak will accidentally eat Hedwig.

 

[Vermilion]

"One of the most important things a writer needs to know how to do is stop," he said. Rowling introduced a new plot device in book six that suggests the characters may return in a new series.

What plot device?

Personally I agree with the author who said that Harry was a prat and Hermione was the heroine of the books. She's the one who does all the work, figures out what's going on and gives harry the tools to defeat Voldemort. What a shame that Rowling didn't see fit to make her main character female.

Anyone else noticed that a children's book with a female lead becomes a book for girls only whilst a male lead is appropriate for both? Or is that just me? (Refer you to Nancy Drew as example).
x
V

 

[Vermilion]

We can, in fact, go all the way back to blockbuster writers like Mrs. Radcliffe back in the early 19th century who out-sold anything written by Jane Austen even though she was a dreadful writer.

.

Phew - for a minute I read that as if you were saying Austen was a dreaful writer. I was about to flame you so badly that art students could use your bones for sketching with!

Austen gets the last laugh, anyway. Not only is she far more popular than Mrs. Radcliffe now, but she gets to poke fun at her for eternity (Northanger Abbey)
x
V

 

[Vermilion]

A co-worker of mine insisted I read the Harry Potter books so she could finally have someone to talk about the series with at work. I caved in and became a fan (Also why I watch the Amazing Race these days). We both came to the conclusion that Harry must die in the seventh because his scar is the final horcrux and therefore he must martyr himself for the good of the wizarding world. Who knows? I also like to tease my co-worker these days by joking that Neville will finally come out of the closet and profess his love for Ron while Buckbeak will accidentally eat Hedwig.

Totally agree that the last Horcrux is hidden in Harry.

I hope Hermione and Ron get married and have babies and name the first one 'Harry.' I hope Harry gets the chop, he's a whiny little git who does no work and relies on his mates to save his tush every time.
x
V

 

[SimonBrooke]

Shrug. And Da Vinci code sold like gangbusters as well. If you want, I can give you a list of shitty books that where huge hits. We can, in fact, go all the way back to blockbuster writers like Mrs. Radcliffe back in the early 19th century who out-sold anything written by Jane Austen even though she was a dreadful writer.

I'm sorry, but quantity doesn't equal quality--and sometimes people love things that are embarrassingly bad. Feathered haircuts, Disco, bubble dresses, Celestine Prophecies.

True. I really can't understand people who can like the Da Vinci Code. But popularity does not prove poor quality, either.

So let's not pretend that popularity instantly means that the Harry Potter books rank up there with Shakespeare and Dickens. If that were the case, the most popular girls in school would also be the most saintly and intelligent.

And before you accuse me of bad-mouthing Rowling, let me say, that I've taught Harry Potter in a Kid Lit class and she is very clever in plotting and storyline, etc. She is not a bad writer, and it's good kid lit. I'm not saying otherwise.

Yes, her strength is undoubtedly her plotting, which is unbelievably tight over such an extended narrative - and I particularly admire that because plot is something I have great difficulty with. But you shouldn't under-rate her as a political satirist. I appreciate that American readers aren't sufficiently in touch with modern British domestic politics to pick up a lot of the satire, but she often has me in stitches.

 

[S-Des]

What plot device?

Personally I agree with the author who said that Harry was a prat and Hermione was the heroine of the books. She's the one who does all the work, figures out what's going on and gives harry the tools to defeat Voldemort. What a shame that Rowling didn't see fit to make her main character female.

Anyone else noticed that a children's book with a female lead becomes a book for girls only whilst a male lead is appropriate for both? Or is that just me? (Refer you to Nancy Drew as example).
x
V

I loved Nancy Drew. But I agree with your point. We live in a society that definitely makes it harder for a woman to be the main character, although that is changing. Society as a whole just takes a while to get pointed in the right direction. Thanks to books like Drew, people grew up with the concept that the woman didn't have to count on a guy to save the day.

I'm sorry, but quanity doesn't equal quality--and sometimes people love things that are embarassingly bad. Feathered haircuts, Disco, bubble dresses, Celestine Prophecies.

Are you saying something about Disco?

 

[starrkers]

First: I love Harry Potter, so do my kids. My 9 yr old has spent most of the summer holidays reading the first three and a half books. My 14 yr old has been waiting for the last book since devouring the sixth.
But really, to put this series in the same league as Dickens and Tolkien is going a bit far. There's far too many plot holes that don't stand up to minor investigation, let alone serious study.
Personally I don't care who dies not that Dumbledore's been seen off, as long as it wraps up reasonably tidily and is readable.
I have a feeling that future readers will look at it a little like Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series - a marvellous concept that outranked the author's ability to do it justice.

 

[angelicminx]

I love Harry Potter myself. The only reason I picked the books up was the controversy surrounding them. The fact that people were trying to ban them piqued my curiosity and I HAD to read them. The first two books were out at that time, I read them and was hooked.

When the Order of the Phoenix arrived (I'd pre-ordered it), I sat down to read it and finished it in 5 hours. In the week prior to its arrival, I'd reread the other 4. The sixth book, however, came as a disappointment. I still haven't finished it. It seemed rushed and lost me on more than one occasion. I'm still only 1/4 of the way through it. I WILL finish it, eventually.

I love J K Rowling's style and imagination. I agree with 3113 that her editors dropped the ball. The sixth book could have been SO much better. I WILL purchase and read the final book.

My prediction for the two character deaths would be: Voldemort and... is Dumbledore already dead?... someone introduced in this book. There was a lot of hype about a 'main character' death in the Goblet of Fire and it turned out to be Cedric, a 'main character' for that book alone.