Sycophant Hex Forum Index
Author Message

<  Deathy Hallows Open Discussion  ~  Senseless Deaths

Zen Lady
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:28 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 15 Location: on the path to wisdom
Okay, I have several different items to discuss, but this is the most general one. Let me lay a little background first.

I think it was 1998 or 1999 when I was living abroad and a friend gave me this charming children’s book to read. At the time, I was desperate to read anything in English, and I enjoyed the story of The Philosopher’s Stone. Shortly after that, I borrowed the second book, and I thought the duel scene between Professors Lockhart and Snape was hilarious (Still do).

A while later, Prisoner of Azkaban came out, but I had to wait till I had a holiday in an English speaking country before I could read it. It was worth the wait, for I thought it was the best of the three and showed so much promise for the future.

I didn’t enjoy the 4th book, and I was surprised at how violent it had become. The 5th book was better than the 4th, but living abroad, I didn’t actually get to read it for a year after it had been released, so I knew what happened by then. Still, it was worth the read, but the senselessness of Sirius Black’s death and the suffering of poor Harry were awful.

When the sixth book came out, I didn’t enjoy it and wound up skimming parts of it. This final book was tough to read. It started out with the death of Hedwig. Talk about senseless! It was the first in what I like to call “a bludger to the gut”. One after another, likable characters died. I couldn’t enjoy it at all, even the funny parts because it was a real bloodbath. At the end, I felt like I was one of the few survivors of a bloody war!

I only know one child who is reading The Deathly Hallows, so I can’t judge the reaction of kids; however, his father tells me that the boy was really upset by the death of Hedwig, the only death he’s read so far. What the heck is the little boy going to feel when he loses Fred, Lupin, and Tonks?

Anyway, I was walking out of the Order of the Phoenix movie recently and commented to my brother-in-law that I liked the Prisoner of Azkaban movie and book best: because nobody dies, not even Buckbeak (and the movie’s director did a great job!). He agreed that PoA was the best, and he reasoned that it’s because “it’s a mix of innocence and darkness, like The Empire Strikes Back.”

Literary deaths can be a very powerful thing. (If you've read Look Homeward, Angel, think of Ben Gant) And movie deaths – remember Bambi’s mother being shot by hunters? But you know what? If I want to experience reality, war, and death, I don’t read charming, magical children’s books. I can just turn on the TV news if I want brutality or senseless deaths. If I want something that speaks to the soul, I turn to immortal literature. I’d rather be exposed to this stuff in Tolstoy or Beckett. Or even something like Gone with the Wind (the book, not the movie).

The whole “who dies?” thing recalls cheap TV series that feature cliffhangers to get people to watch – to “see what happens”. I loathe those things!

Some people may agree with me and some may disagree, but I think the whole series would be vastly improved if none of these deaths took place. There would have to be some minor or major plot changes, but nobody really had to die, not even Sirius or Dumbledore.

My questions for anyone interested in commenting:

1. Do you think that any of the deaths were necessary to the plot? Would the series have been improved or weakened if only a few likable characters had died?

2. If Severus Snape had survived and been named a hero, what would have happened in his life? Would it have eventually been normal, or would he have gone on being miserable for years?

_________________
"...all the pain, the beauty, and the wonder of their lives..."
~Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
just me
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:07 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 28 Location: Germany
Zen Lady wrote:
I only know one child who is reading The Deathly Hallows, so I can’t judge the reaction of kids; however, his father tells me that the boy was really upset by the death of Hedwig, the only death he’s read so far. What the heck is the little boy going to feel when he loses Fred, Lupin, and Tonks?

I agree with you that book 7 might not be suited for children. But JKR herself mentioned it several times that the last books would no longer be childrens books.
Zen Lady wrote:
Literary deaths can be a very powerful thing. ... But you know what? If I want to experience reality, war, and death, I don’t read charming, magical children’s books. I can just turn on the TV news if I want brutality or senseless deaths.

I so agree with you!!! You´re absolutely right!!!
Zen Lady wrote:
Some people may agree with me and some may disagree, but I think the whole series would be vastly improved if none of these deaths took place. There would have to be some minor or major plot changes, but nobody really had to die, not even Sirius or Dumbledore.

I agree with you. She really could have faked most of these deaths, just to make her plot go on. I can imagine a different version of the final battle: Voldemort has been defeated (in a possibly much more human way), and all the "departed" -- one after the other -- pop up and join the battle scene, relieved and reunited... there is a big group hug and laughter and singing... that would have been real magic.
Zen Lady wrote:
My questions for anyone interested in commenting:

1. Do you think that any of the deaths were necessary to the plot? Would the series have been improved or weakened if only a few likable characters had died?

2. If Severus Snape had survived and been named a hero, what would have happened in his life? Would it have eventually been normal, or would he have gone on being miserable for years?


1. I believe that if Voldemort had not killed Harry´s parents, the whole story could not have happened, so I think these two deaths were really necessary. I don´t think they could have gone in hiding for so long and leave Harry alone without wanting to interfere. And if they had taken Harry with them the whole story would not have happened. I don´t think real parents could be so heartless as to let their child believe they were dead for such a long time. I don´t know, I´m not a parent, but I don´t think I could stand this.
For the other deaths: most of them surely could have been faked (see above).

2. I`m not sure what would have happened, though I think that, yes, he could have had a somewhat normal life. At least I would have wanted for him to get the chance to find out for himself.
View user's profile Send private message
Circle_of_Echoes
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:34 am Reply with quote
Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 9
Hi, Zen Lady (and hi, just me, as well; always interesting to read your posts!)

I'm not really answering your questions properly (save for the last one); just making a comment on deaths in DH in general. Literary deaths can, indeed, be powerful, and my stance is that many of these deaths were badly written.

I was perplexed at the handling of Hedwig's death versus that of Mad-Eye Moody. Hedwig was killed right in front of our faces, and her death was mentioned again and again. On the other hand, Moody, who was obviously more than merely an owl (as beautiful an owl as Hedwig was), was killed, as I describe it, "off camera;" that is, it was reported after it had occurred. Sorry, he didn't make it. Too bad, he got shot down. Boo hoo. It was almost incidental. If we were going to have a bloodbath--which this sequence came very close to being--then I would rather have seen Moody in action. We've *heard* about him, and been told what a tough survivor he is, and I'd have liked to see this interesting fellow with a lot of history behind him both doing his job and putting up the kind of fight I know he could. But he was one of many who, I suppose, didn't warrant the ink to make it happen. At least, I did like the scene when Harry buried Moody's magical eye at the base of the oldest, gnarliest tree he could find. Obviously, Harry understood how fitting that was... and so did I.

As a whole, if the deaths of major characters were considered necessary, I would have liked to look them right in the face. I'd have liked to see the various fights they put up before laying down their lives, and heard their thoughts. Happening upon the bodies after-the-fact (as with Lupin and Tonks) just wasn't very satisfying. Lupin was defending a world that didn't even approve of him, and it made our memory of Tonks nothing more than that of a clumsy girl given to amusing herself by exercising her Metamorphmagus powers. But where was the Auror? She must have been a good one--you think Moody would ever allow her out into the field or trust his own life to her if she weren't?--and therefore, she would have waded in and done some serious dueling. She, too, died for her son, if you think about it.

I'm very sorry that Fred was chosen to die, as I liked the Twins very much throughout the whole series. They were everything we nervous, scared types wished we could have been: smart, funny, with a bit of maliciousness thrown in there for spice. But at least his death was written entirely in character. He literally went out with a last laugh. It couldn't have been better if he'd orchestrated it himself. Fred Weasley as I know him would have loved it. Then again, my age might have something to do with my outlook on this, and on DH in general. Let's just say that mortality has begun to stare back at me, and the concept of a good death begins to make more sense. Fred made a good death. Actually, so did Moody, Lupin, and Tonks, even if we weren't witness to them. Which brings me to the topic of...

Severus Snape.

Oh, dear.

He was denied a good death by the author. That was what was so senseless; not the fact of the death itself. Written in character, he would have made a truly good death; I'd stake my life on that. Yeah, he was nasty and a bully and not nice and all that, yadda yadda yadda--*why* he was that way is abundantly clear to anyone with the small slice of brain required to comprehend how one's upbringing and contact (or lack thereof) with other people shapes your personality--but In-Character!Snape was still proud and honourable. He was powerfully magical. He spoke well, and he kept control of himself in the face of extreme danger. He took action and made things happen. None of this was evident as written; not one bit. That's what makes me so sad... and not just a little angry.

If Snape had survived... hmm... I think he'd have still been unhappy--it's desperately difficult to break the habit of misery--but the reasons for his unhappiness would have been different. No one would have proclaimed him a hero; he was too much hated and there was far too much suspician surrounding him for him ever to be trusted again. He would be free of the awful fear he must have experienced every time he was Summoned by Voldemort, which would certainly be a major load off his mind, but there are always those bitter-enders: those last few rogue Death Eaters who got away and who'd be after his blood; and, doubtless, several other important parts of his anatomy. Without every last one of them locked away, he'd always be looking over his shoulder. I'm sure the reconstituted Ministry would be keeping a very close eye on him, as well, with an eye towards locking him up. That's no way to live.

Certainly, he'd be out of a job. He detested the students and on one level, he'd be nothing but relieved to be rid of his responsibility for them; but on another level, it would mean the end of what little safety and security and comfort he's ever known. Could he scrape a living as an independant potion-maker, perhaps? Maybe... but only if he had someone else fronting his wares to the public. It's that matter of public perception and trust again. His past would follow him around for the rest of his life.

Unfortunately, I see Snape's life as a survivor of the war being pretty bleak. I wish I could say I think it would be otherwise, but I can't. In that sense, it was necessary for him to die. I only wish he'd been given the opportunity to meet his end as Wizard!Snape, rather than Wimp!Snape.

Cripes, I've gone and written a novel-length post again! Sorry *grin*.

Echo
View user's profile Send private message
just me
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:35 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 28 Location: Germany
Quote:

Cripes, I've gone and written a novel-length post again! Sorry *grin*.

Echo


Hi, Echo, no need to apologize. If you´ve got something to say... out with it Very Happy

But I have to disagree with you in a few points:

It is possible to stop being miserable, even if you spent most of your life being... miserable. I know this from experience... (I don´t want to bore you to death with the story of my life, but I know what I´m talking about.)

Quote:

Certainly, he'd be out of a job. He detested the students and on one level, he'd be nothing but relieved to be rid of his responsibility for them; but on another level, it would mean the end of what little safety and security and comfort he's ever known. Could he scrape a living as an independant potion-maker, perhaps? Maybe... but only if he had someone else fronting his wares to the public. It's that matter of public perception and trust again. His past would follow him around for the rest of his life.


I don´t think you are right in this point. You forget that he would have Harry Potter, maybe not as a dear friend but at least as a person who knows what he´s done and who would respect him. And Harry would have enough influence to be able to help him in the beginning, and I think he would not permit people to treat Snape badly when he was around. And in the course of time people would stop seeing Snape as the former DeathEater and would begin to see him as a person with a difficult personality but nonetheless worthy of respect. It is possible to change public perception! This is why so many companies spend billions in advertising.

Quote:
I only wish he'd been given the opportunity to meet his end as Wizard!Snape, rather than Wimp!Snape.

I agree with you: if he really had to die I also would have preferred it to happen in a more dignified way. But: I´m not at all convinced he really had to die. For a good author - and up to now I thought JKR was a good author - there would have been thousands of possible ways to let him live. She did so with Arthur Weasley who was intended to die from Nagini`s bite (in Book 5), but he was granted a "reprieve" because she "could not bear" the thought of him being dead (it´s her own words in the quotation marks).

I´d like to repeat my answer to the original post: I don´t know what would have happened with Snape if he had survived the war, but I think he would have deserved a chance to find out for himself if he still wanted to be miserable or if he wanted to go on, leave the past behind and start something new and maybe better.

I KNOW he could have made it!
View user's profile Send private message
Sakuruth
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:52 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 7
Realistically, the book is set during a war, and told from the third-person limited perspective of someone who is only peripherally involved in the major battles thereof.

There have to be deaths in order to sell the seriousness of the situation - if nobody Harry knows and likes dies, he has no personally compelling reason to go on. Yes, there's the greater good, and fluffy kittens, and so on, but it's a much better impact if he's actually feeling the stress himself. (It also makes for a more interesting, emotionally involving story, rather than a sort of intellectual exercise.)

Harry, however, is not actually present when most of these deaths occur. If he's not present, having a drawn-out death sequence doesn't make sense. They happen off camera because Harry is being kept out of the bulk of the action; hero material he may or may not be, but he's also just seventeen, and the adults surrounding him are trying, for the main, to keep him out of harm's way. (And when no adults are involved, it's a handful of seventeen-year-olds on their own - they keep themselves out of harm's way as best they can for sheer self-preservation!)

I would certain have liked to see what actually happened, but there's no really sensible way, given the perspective she's locked herself into for the six previous books (and I'm thinking - besides Snape and Frank Bryce, do we see a 3rd-person limited chapter from anyone else's perspective?) to write those without drastically breaking point-of-view. And I'll give her that much credit as a writer, at least.

I have issues with plenty of things in the story, but the deaths, for the most part, weren't really it. (Snape is a separate issue, but I'd already resigned myself to the fact that he was probably going to get a postmortem reveal as the good guy.)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Circle_of_Echoes
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:21 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 9
Quote:

I would certain have liked to see what actually happened, but there's no really sensible way, given the perspective she's locked herself into for the six previous books...


"Locked herself into..."

Very good point. Perhaps the reason the seventh book seemed (to me) so disjointed and set apart from the six that preceded it was precisely because seeing things primarily from Harry's perspective no longer worked. There was way too much going on elsewhere and no way to focus on it.

Echo
View user's profile Send private message
Pennfana
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:45 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 216 Location: Ontario, Canada
Honestly, I'm sort of divided on the subject of whether the deaths in DH, along with Sirius in OotP and Dumbledore in HBP, were necessary. Some of them I saw as being unnecessary, of course; for example, the plot would've ticked along just fine if Moody, Fred, Lupin and Tonks had survived. Their deaths serve no purpose, unless they're put in to show that THIS IS WAR and war isn't anything to be glorified; people die when they're at war, and usually those deaths really are senseless.

There are other deaths, though, that I can understand from a certain point of view. (To avoid turning this post into a full-length essay, I'm going to be focusing on what I think of as the "big three" ambiguous deaths in the series: Sirius, Dumbledore and Snape.) Sirius' death, however pointless it may have been, nonetheless forces Harry to think of the consequences of his actions; I think that Harry's reaction to Sirius' death might actually have pushed him into growing up a little. Sometimes it really does take something that huge to put things into perspective.

I think of Dumbledore's death in roughly the same way. After all, though it may have been relatively pointless, his death also forces Harry to become a bit more mature. He realizes that although it's none of his doing, it really is down to him to sort things out because he's the only one who can. Voldemort's made it that way through his belief in Trelawney's prophecy. Furthermore, the fallout from Dumbledore's death that we see in DH shows Harry that things really aren't all that they seem; even the good guys can have pasts that they're not proud of.

And then, of course, there's Snape—the one whose death I think is the most ambiguous of them all. Maybe it's just the Snape-lover in me, but I think that his death might have been one of the most pointless in DH; when I first read the scene, it looked almost like Rowling had written herself into a corner, what with the whole thing about the Elder Wand, and the only way she could see to get herself out of it was to kill Severus off. Perhaps it was also the only way he could really be redeemed; after all, what sort of future could a man like him have in the post-Voldemort world? He may have turned out to be working for Dumbledore in the end, but he's almost universally despised by the rest of the wizarding world. I'd imagine that things could have become very difficult for him in a very short period of time.

Actually, the whole scene reminded me vaguely of a quote from The Matrix Reloaded, when the Architect tells Neo, "...though your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant." The Elder Wand, after all, is something that was enormously important to Voldemort; he even killed his supposed right-hand-man for it. In the end, though, it proved to be absolutely worthless to him.

(By the way, what sort of nickname is "the Deathstick" for something that's supposed to be so important? I burst out laughing the first time I read it. It quite ruined the drama of the scene for me.)

So, that's my perspective in as much of a nutshell as I could shove it into. I could've said more, I suppose, but I've rambled on for more than long enough. Smile

(By the way, please excuse any typos I've left in this post; my old laptop went to the Great Computer Terminal in the Sky a few weeks ago, and I've had the replacement for less than a week, so I'm still not completely comfortable with the keyboard. I think I caught and corrected all the typos I made when I was writing this, but nobody's perfect.),

_________________
Accio mind! Mr. Green
View user's profile Send private message
celisnebula
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:04 am Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 312 Location: USA
Honestly, compared to the other children's books my son is reading (Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan, Pendragon series by DJ McHale, The Hidden Kingdom series by Garth Nix just to name a few), the Harry Potter books really aren't all that violent or graphic.

I think many people have a misconception of what children's literature is and often come up with the idea that a lot of it is benign like the Beatric Potter or Dr Suess genre that is normally written for those age 7 or younger.

I've notice that the older my son gets, the more his fictional tastes develop and broaden. I would have to say that the Harry Potter series is for the 11 and older age group - and is, by comparison, somewhat tamer than some of the fiction out there for the 10 and older age group.

Obviously JK believed those deaths to be necessary - and I've noticed an increasing trend for the death of characters close to the protagonist in many series - it adds a level of gritty, hopelessness that children seem to relate to - the idea that the lead character will persevere, even when everything is against him, and everyone he/she needs is gone.

You'd be surprised at how well kids assimilate this - and what their responses are.

When I read the part of Hedgwid's death to my son, he said - makes sense - Harry has lost everything that has ever mattered to him... he needs to know that the bad guys don't care about pets, or friends, or even love - and it's a hard thing to learn (after he told me it was silly to cry over an owl's death, especially after Moody's eye went to the Pink Cow).

Of course, my son was entirely unsympathetic to my tears over Snape's death - and my anger over how he was finished. My son was like "what? Do you expect Harry to put off Voldemort just so he can bury another person? That's stupid Mom," (and in a very insufferable voice I might add).

In the end, I think JK has written the only possible ending she could, given the focus of her books, which is Harry. That anyone (Snape, Dumbledore or the rest) have fleshed out, and complex characterizations is because Harry needed them to be that way - that's it.

_________________
Celis~~~
And they say we're crazy
http://www.livejournal.com/users/celisnebula/

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Tesla
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:57 am Reply with quote
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 13
Death in children's literature does tend to spark an intake of breath from people. However, I think that introducing children to the concept of death, even meaningless deaths, is something that shouldn't be put aside. Death is a part of life, however unpleasant. The ARE consequences to actions and situations. As to whether the deaths in the books were meaningless...well, that depends on whether you feel that death SHOULD always have a purpose in a story. A lot could have been weeded out of the books on that criterium, and it is very reader-dependent on whether something is meaningful. Of course, if you consider JKR's opinion as the author, it may not match with what the readers think.
View user's profile Send private message
Zen Lady
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:05 am Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 15 Location: on the path to wisdom
Thanks for everyone who replied. It's always great to hear different points of view on a subject.

In trying to recall the books that I read as a youngster, I talked to my sister, who is one year younger, and she said that the gritty, realistic books we used to read were full of "drugs and promiscuity". I can still remember how I bawled when I read The Outsiders. (How cliched it that?) But reading the first three HP books, it's a lovely fantasy of another world where the protagonist doesn't exactly see everything clearly in the point of view presented to the readers.

At the risk of revealing my advanced age, all I can say is that I agree that deaths in literature can be very powerful. I'm sad to say that the glut of deaths in this book has pummeled me in a real, visceral way so that when I think about the story, all I feel is bad. It's a sad thing because there were some entertaining parts, but I couldn't enjoy the finale.

Has anyone read Stephen King's The Dark Tower series? The self-proclaimed "literary equivalent of big mac and fries" had a similar bloodbath of an ending... I won't say anything else except that he gave no pretense of satisfaction. Same thing goes for Pierre Boule's Bridge upon the River Kwai, which ended quite differently from the film. Everyone still died, but they didn't actually blow up the bridge. Horrible, unsatisfying, and classic. The same thing goes for Akira Kurasawa's movie The Seven Samurai, which was remade into the Hollywood version, The Magnificent Seven. In the original Japanese classic, there were many deaths, and almost everyone was miserable at the end. In the Hollywood version, the boy ended up with his girl, and Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner rode off into the sunset in search of further adventures. The viewer couldn't even wallow in misery after that mediocre attempt at a happy ending.

So what's the point? I couldn't enjoy the book. In fact, I couldn't enjoy either of the last 2 books. The series peaked for me with Prisoner of Azkaban and never lived up to the glorious promise of that book. It's kind of sad, in a way, I think.

_________________
"...all the pain, the beauty, and the wonder of their lives..."
~Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Zen Lady
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:13 am Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 15 Location: on the path to wisdom
Pennfana wrote:
(By the way, what sort of nickname is "the Deathstick" for something that's supposed to be so important? I burst out laughing the first time I read it. It quite ruined the drama of the scene for me.)



Oh, I agree! Talk about silly! "Deathstick" sounds like a non-filter cigarette!

I also think The Death Eaters is kind of a two-cent edition of a book called The Eaters of the Dead. I didn't read it, but saw kind of a weird movie based on it, which was called Vikingove in Czech (i.e. Vikings)

_________________
"...all the pain, the beauty, and the wonder of their lives..."
~Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jynx67
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:09 am Reply with quote
Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Posts: 170
Thanks, Zen. You are so right, as always. (Want new chapter!)

Now, I agree that the deaths were pointless. I didn't understand any of them. I mean, Fred... leave the twin to live a painful existence. Lupin and Tonks? Stupid! And Hedwig... just so she could bring it back up SIX MORE TIMES? It hurt each time. And Dobby? By a thrown dagger? That just reeks of stupidity.

And Severus... he died, yes, and it was expected. How he died wasn't. It was so... blah.

Arthur was supposed to die. That would have made more sense. No children should have died. I thought this was a children's series. Why did she change?

Now, for your second question... I know of a few fanfics that address that, and think others should write some. We need a better ending, and I know so many authors who could write something so much better.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
Post new topic

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum