Harry Potter Fate

[JaniceFerSure]

Hiya.I just read on CNN.com,that Daniel Radcliffe aka Harry Potter is assuming that in order for Voldemort to eventually die,Harry must die as well.Here is that story:

Daniel Radcliffe, who stars as the daring schoolboy wizard, said Friday that Harry may die in the last book of J.K. Rowling's magical series.

"I'm going to be really unpopular for saying this about Harry, but I've always had the suspicion -- with everything that's going on -- that he might die," Radcliffe, 14, told a news conference Friday to promote the third film of Rowling's series, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban."

Rowling has remained silent about the fate of Harry in the seventh and final book. But with every new installment Rowling reveals more connections between the character and his arch-enemy, the evil wizard Lord Voldemort.

"Harry and Voldemort have the same core in them, we get to see that in the fourth film," the now in production "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," said Radcliffe.

"The only way Voldemort could die is if Harry dies as well."

Voldemort was responsible for the deaths of Harry's parents and left the young wizard with the distinctive zig-zag scar on his forehead.

The pair have similar powers -- including their wands and their fluency in Parsel -- and Voldemort has been unable to kill Harry.

Rowling has hinted in the past that Harry may not survive.

Asked whether she would write books about the character when he reaches adulthood, she replied: "You have to wait and see whether he survives to be a grown-up."

"The Prisoner of Azkaban" premieres in Britain on Sunday and goes on general release the following day.

"The Goblet of Fire" may be the last time fans see Radcliffe in the role of Harry, which has brought him a fortune estimated at around 10 million pounds (US$18 million). He has yet to commit to a fifth film.

Asked about his future, he said: "I really love acting but I've got lots of other things I'm really interested in, like music. Whatever happens, happens. I'm interested to go on to other things at some point, when that will be I don't know.

"I'm not going to lie and say it will be absolutely easy to see someone else play the part because it will be extremely strange after four films," Radcliffe said.

"But if it happens it will be something I will have to get used to. I'm not saying it will happen but it's a possibility."

What do you at MC think?

 

[Erine81981]

That is kind of weird that if he did well then it wouldn't be the same w/ or w/out him. I hope she keeps him alive. I wouldn't want to see him die. I hope he doesn't. Hoping

 

[Beth C]

I don't think this will happen. Even though it would make for an exciting ending to a series of books, just the fact that once it is known that Harry dies at the end of the 7th book might keep kids from wanting to read the series.

From what I've heard, Harry Potter is the MOST READ series of books for children. It makes kids WANT to pick up a book.

I don't think J.K. Rowling would do that to children. Too many people who love the series would protest LOUDLY! Too many kids have their hopes and fantasies now and 'live' in the magical worlds of Harry Potter.

I don't think she will kill Harry off.

~Beth C

 

[The Narrator]

It's one thing to "kill a character off." It's another thing entirely to allow a character a noble sacrifice. I'm not so sure that there would be rioting in the streets if Harry did not survive the final book, so long as his death/ascension/whatever was handled gracefully and with purpose.

There is a part of me that's still agog over the concept that children haven't been reading, but then, I was raised on books, so my perceptions of the lives of others may be askew. The fact that some children were experiencing headaches because of reading too much does not seem to bode well for the intellectual endeavors of humanity--nor does the concept of a three hour movie being considered as "long."

I digress.

I'd hate to think that an author might cater to the whims of a clamoring public rather than telling the story they want to tell in the first place. If Rowling has a plan--and I daresay that's more than George Lucas ever did--for her series, then I'd like her to take it to it's proposed conclusion than bowing under pressure of marketing. The first five books have been engaging and well-done and I trust that no matter what happens to the characters the following two will be worth the price of entrance as well. Unlike movies and television shows, which are only initial concepts and shaped by things like market-research, I like to think that books have a purity of author's intent. It's the author's vision and unsullied story that makes books a special form of media. (Not to say that there aren't TV programs and films out there which strive to be above the blandness market-research creates, but they're certainly not the norm.)

For you fantasy readers out there, check out George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series (Book 1: A Game of Thrones). There's an author who's not afraid to have some extremely well-crafted and major characters die for the greater good of the story.

 

[MuppetQuilter]

Remember those were just his thoughts. And there are some inaccuracies. He says Harry and Vold. have the same core and the only way to kill Vold. is to kill Harry as well. But we learned in the last book the prophecy says only one of the two can live-- either Harry or Vold. I think we're building up to the big confrontation when Harry must either choose to kill Vold or allow himself (or Ron and Hermione) to be killed. Harry isn't going to choose to kill easily-- that was made very clear in the last book-- but forced into a corner where he must defend the last few remaining people he loves...

Obviously there are going to be more deaths. Rowlings has said so. You can't have ultimate evil without some really dreadful stuff happening. I think Vold will kill Dumbledore. I think we'll lose some other characters we've come to care about. We might lose Harry at the end-- in some noble act where he sacrafices himself to save the wizarding world from Vold-- but I wouldn't lose sleep over that possibility.

As for the popularity of the series and public reaction influencing Rowlings, I don't think that will happen. For one thing, the final chapter was written long ago. Rowlings planned out the entire story before she wrote the first book and I don't think she'll change her plans because the books are insanely popular. However, she's a smart woman and she has plenty of experience with kids-- I think she has something to say about good and evil and she can't make that point without killing off some characters we love, but I don't think she'll do anything to outrageous.

 

[Jennifer12]

With Rowling's dedication to using traditional storytelling structure, I think maybe Harry may die and then be reborn in some way like many mythic heroes (even Buffy!). I don't think he'll end up dead for good.

Jen

 

[Drum Eater]

I think the only way Rowling could finish off this series is with the death of her main character. Where else would she cap it off? That appears to be the only way that everything will be resolved. But I really don't like the way Rowling handles the death of characters in her books. The way she writes their deaths is appears she is just using them as part of her story and that she as the storyteller has not pity for them. And I really didn't like the 5th book...it was way to long, and it didn't leave me wanting more.

But don't kill me over it. I used to be into Harry Potter (the books) until I realized there are a lot more, deep, meaningful books and films out there. I mean, yeah, Harry Potter probably isn't mean to be deep and meaningful, but if it isn't Rowling needs to stop making it darker. If it's a children's story, principally, she needs to calm down a bit. Anyway, I'll stop ranting and let somebody else have a turn!

 

[Don'tLiveonMoon]

I *do* think Harry Potter is deep and meaningful. But that's just me. I also do not think it's remotely anti-Christian, but that's just me too. I'm a pretty big HP fan. Did you hear the sixth book has an official title now? It's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." Apparently she's only been working on it intensively for a month, so we won't be seeing it for a while... In many ways, I think the fifth book was my least favorite. It was so dark, and Harry was so often surly and rude. But there were some things about it I really loved, like how much Fred and George were in it. I hope they're still in the sixth and seventh books in spite of not being at the school anymore.
Erin

 

[rexcrk]

That's interesting news. I don't really care either way if he dies or not (I'm not a die-hard HP fan, but it's pretty cool). It's gonna be weird how they're gonna have to change actors for the movies. That's probably the only thing I don't like about how they're making the films, the series in book form isn't even done yet. That's one of the great things about Lord of the Rings, they did them all at once

 

[Don'tLiveonMoon]

Yeah, it's so awesome how LOTR was made. I don't think they ought to switch actors, no matter how old they get. They have much older people play teenagers on TV all the time. Unless Dan, Rupert and Emma really don't want to do it, I think they should just stick with those three.
Erin