Jim Carrey Online

I didnt expect her to say that either. I think it was good because Richard and Judy didnt ask all of the normal questions, like when will the book be released.

So...... ......when will the book be released?

She hasent finished it yet. So probably spring next year.

Ok, I don't know how I overlooked this thread but . . . Harry Better not die. She would get hate mail over revealing the end of the book not actually killing him. If she kills him off she's home free to write whatever else she wants, without being bothered for more Harry Potter, but also there would be alot of dissapointed fans, me included. Becasue I followed this character through 7 years of his life THOUSANDS of pages of Harry Potter's struggles and triumphs. . . if he dies, everything would've been in vain and I will have wasted ALOT of hours reading about a guy who dies in the end. That would be the most anti climactic thing she could ever do. The whole Harry Potter franchise would go under, and the books would be on 25 cent table at the library in a few years. Hoever if she keeps him alive and he ends in triumph the books are a shoe in to become classics, and will be read for centuries down the road! If she ends it the right way, she won't be bothered, readers will be satisfied, and she still makes millions a year of HP merchandise. Why would she kill him??

Two main Characters will die:
Voldemort .. . that's a given unless, she wants to write more HP books.

And ??? I have a feeling it's going to be Hagrid, I hope not. . . but he's the logical choice.

Why would she kill him

..........so that no-one could pick up from where she left off..........she always planned 7 books.........no more.........so it'll have to end somehow...........it won't be left hanging...

fluffy

Agatha Christie kiled Hercule Poirot after over twenty books. He dies to stop a killer. Even though Poirot dies Agatha Christie is the second best selling auther of all time even after her death. She is second only to Shakespere.

omnipresence wrote:Agatha Christie kiled Hercule Poirot after over twenty books. He dies to stop a killer. Even though Poirot dies Agatha Christie is the second best selling auther of all time even after her death. She is second only to Shakespere.

You are really incredibly bright aren't you?

i agree with Jimenem.....i think it is logical that Hagrat is going to het killed off.

but i stand by with that if harry dies, he will still play a role in future books as one of the ghosts in Hogwarts......that is if she wants to do more books.

Thanks quirky. I like Poirot and Agatha Christie a lot too. Im not a geek or anything though .
She says that after Harry Potter she is going to concentrate on books for younger children.

I see your point omnipresence, however you stated that there were over twenty books with hercule. . . by then the readers were satisfied. We only get 7 abbreviated years of this young wizrds life. Plus he hasn't done anything tremendous . . . apart from defuse a threat. The world is in no way changed. . . just preserved. Harry hasn't done anything making his death an affordable one, or one that I want to have to read about. After he dies, he will not be remembered, except as the one guy that killed that evil dude a long time ago. Assuming he dies in the next book. The only way I can see her putting him to rest is if she encompasses the rest of his life in the last few chapters, and he dies an old man. . . or maybe she could get away with killing him as a martyr. . . but still it would be somewhat dissatisfying. I want to finish the series satisfied with no more cliffhangers. . . if he dies, it would elimintae the cliffhanger part sure, but I was be dissapointed.

If he died killing Voldemort then you could argue he's "served his purpose"?
Perhaps Ron and Hermione die saving Harry.....

You have to remember that the Poirot books were more than one story they varied so much. Whereas Harry Potter is more like one story split into seven large books with a tight story line. So there is not much need to write obver twenty books on the same story.

And going back to the beginnjing of this thread JK did not give us any reason why she would keep him alive. She just told us why she would kill him.

That she did. . .I'm not saying she won't. All I'm saying is I'd be highly dissapointed if he died, and it wasn't a satisfying death. Like if she killed him, for her own sake rather than what would be best for the story.

Thats along the lines of what I was saying earlier. When I said that I'd be really dissapointed if Snape didnt go out with a fight. Should he die that is.

Snape should live. He is the real interesting character in the stories to me. Constantly portrayed as the bad guy, with a hint he might not be. I think he will eventually turn out to be some kind of savour....Harry's greatest ally in the end. IMHO.