Oookay.....

[patgund]

J.K. Rowling announced she's only planning to kill two characters in "Harry Potter and the Milking of the Cash Cow"

Rowling to kill two in final book

"One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die," she said.

She refused to elaborate, as "I don't want the hate mail or anything else".

Rowling said she could understand why authors might want to finish off their main characters in order to ensure they could never be resurrected."

Comments

[cormac.livejournal.com]

No, she said that she's planning to kill at least two characters.

[patgund.livejournal.com]

That's what the article said

[stoutfellow.livejournal.com]

Rowling said she could understand why authors might want to finish off their main characters in order to ensure they could never be resurrected

Heh. That doesn't always work; just ask Conan Doyle.

[fionnbharro.livejournal.com]

Well, we've known since Book 1 that Dumbledore *had* to die.

My suspicion is that Snape will be one of the deaths -- and it will later be revealed that he's a 'Good guy,' loyal to Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix, and did everything to protect as many lives as he could (including Draco and Harry's).

The other death -- in my opinion, of course -- will be Neville. He, as we remember, is one of two possible children who is the threat to Voldemort -- and it's never been completely explained *why* Voldemort chose Harry as his Enemy. Harry's abilities are formidible, indeed, but skill and power might not determine Voldemort's nemisis. Neville's death, given his family's history of sacrifice and loss to Voldemort, would be all the more tragic -- and therefore a more 'epic' and powerful end to the story.

[loli-cat.livejournal.com]

The article I just read said that

-two major characters die

-she hadn't anticipated killing them off

-one character got a reprieve

-she wrote the last chapter of the final book in 1990 so she's always known how it will end.

[electorprince.livejournal.com]

Bah, she's transparent. When she first wrote the ending, neither Harry nor Voldemort were going to die because you "can't really kill off evil", and there was no sense in killing off the main character if he can't fulfill his mission, but instead has to live on and keep studying to try and find a way to ensure no more Dark Lords of the Sith come about, with the latent tragedy of his unspeakable loss at the hands of said evil nicely ensconsed in memory to warm him while he's buried in Hogwart's library studying past anti-evil crusades. Now, to end the whole thing, they're both going to croak and that's the two "unforeseen major deaths" she's referring to, and the rest of the world gets to be thankful and go about their merry ways, always remembering the brave lad that saved them from the Darkest of the Dark Ones while they blithely forget thaqt evil existed. . .until next time. Anyone else that was given a "reprieve" only had it so because she's altered her "can't destroy evil" stance.

Money on Snape betraying Voldemort before the end, and providing opening for Harry's Care Bear Stare to finish Riddle off and sacrifice himself in the process. Ron and Hermione get to watch, mouths agape.

[danas-comms.livejournal.com]

*drive-by comment whilst looking for to swipe amusing LJ-related icon from patgund*

I'm seriously suspicious that Harry's a Horcrux. Which won't make sense to you unless you've read Book 6... but there ya go.

And if he's a Horcrux, he has to die.

I don't think he was made one on purpose, though. I think Voldemort accidentally made one of him when he killed Harry's mother. And perhaps that's why You-Know-Who couldn't kill Harry... is it possible for him to destroy a piece of his own soul? Everybody thinks it was some "ancient charm" brought on by her sacrifice... but almost nobody knew V was making Horcruxes, and the very idea might have escaped Dumbledore himself. I mean, it's pretty out there.