J.K Rowling says two characters die in last Potter book…

.. and one of them might end up being Harry himself:

‘‘I have never been tempted to kill him off before the final because I’ve always planned seven books, and I want to finish on seven books,’’ Rowling said Monday on TV here.

‘‘I can completely understand, however, the mentality of an author who thinks, `Well, I’m gonna kill them off because that means there can be no non-author-written sequels. So it will end with me, and after I’m dead and gone they won’t be able to bring back the character’.’‘

Rowling declined to commit herself about Harry, saying she doesn’t want to receive hate mail.

In her Monday interview on the ‘‘Richard and Judy’’ show, Rowling said people are sometimes shocked to hear that she wrote the end of book seven before she had a publisher for the first book in the series.

‘‘The final chapter is hidden away, although it’s now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve. But I have to say two die that I didn’t intend to die,’’ she said. ‘‘A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They don’t target extras do they? They go for the main characters. Well, I do.’‘

She should know by now that she’s going to get a ton of hate mail regardless of who she kills off as each character has his or her fans, but I’m less concerned with that than I am with when the next book will be hitting store shelves. No word on that as of yet though she does say she’s well into the writing process. Meanwhile the fifth movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, will be released on July 13, 2007. So at least we have that to look forward to.

11 thoughts on “J.K Rowling says two characters die in last Potter book…

  1. Yeah, Rowling will have lots of problems from so-called fans no matter what she does.  Just look at the whining and moaning, including a rather ridiculous petition drive, when Rowling had the temerity to have Harry hook up with the “wrong” girl in the most recent book. 

    But if she does kill Potter off at the end it will hardly ensure there are no non-Rowling sequels.  After all in a series dealing with magic it wouldn’t be hard at all for a future writer to come up with some convenient deus ex machina to bring Harry back from the dead.

  2. Not to mention the load of fan fiction out there that would keep Harry alive.  As a Snape fan, I wouldn’t cry if Harry were killed, but if Snape gets snuffed, yeah, this 44 year old woman will toss a tantrum. lol

  3. LOL I read the first three books but would it be too much like dowsing the fires with gasoline if I reminded you they are fairy stories for children?

  4. I read the first three books but would it be too much like dowsing the fires with gasoline if I reminded you they are fairy stories for children?

    KILL THE UNBELIEVER!! Avada Kedavra

  5. LuckyJohn19: …I reminded you they are fairy stories for children?

    Indeed they are, but for being merely children’s fairy stories they are damned good reading.

    Geise: I never could understand why these books became so popular…

    See my response to John.

  6. I never could understand why these books became so popular…

    You and me both. I don’t follow the Cult of Harry Potter, but I’d say that the first volume or two was written as a kid’s novel, the kind that kids read just when they wean themselves from pictures on every page. When these books became an unexpected success, the publishers demanded feature creep. The books have evolved towards an older audience, the plot thickened, and major feature creep and phone book bloat set in. Whatever charm the first volumes had is long lost.

    I prefer to reread Sharyn McCrumb’s Bimbos from the Death Sun to the new Potters wink

  7. Sure, the Harry Potter books are not great literature.  But they’re very entertaining.  Rowling’s counterfactual world is brilliantly thought out.  My daughter Rosalind was a lazy reader, especially in English, until we started reading the Harry Potter books to her, and she got too impatient with our leisurely progress and started reading them herself.

    And Rowling has provided us with another good candidate to replace “atheist”- how about “muggle”?

  8. Zilch, I don’t begrudge anybody whatever enjoyment they get out of the Harry Potter books.

    And either one of “not a theist” or “atheist” works for me. Why bother coming up with a new cutesy term?

  9. Why bother coming up with a new cutesy term?

    How can you ask, elwed?  Was ist der Unterschied zwischen einer Ente?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.