Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows question

Hmm... tricky. I think the story would be much more emotional if Harry died, and his death wouldn't be random, it would be for a good reason because that's just how Rowling is. But honestly I think losing Fred, Tonks, Lupin, and Sirius made up for it. So I guess I don't think Harry should have died but I'd still love the books if he did.

No, I didn't think Harry needed to die. *But* I would have been much happier if the book just sort of ended there and didn't include that terrible epilogue.

Considering the Harry Potter books are children books, I don't think that would've gone down well at all!
It would be like walking down the street, kicking a random young boy in the balls and then when the poor thing is gasping for air like a fish, you tell him that Father Christmas isn't real. It would be cruel and totally unnecessary.

And I've only read the books once, but wouldn't that ending conflict with the prophesy -- something about only one will survive the battle or something? I'm pretty sure there was something like that mentioned in the previous books.

Not necessarily. I liked that because of his selflessness he had the choice to be finished and die or go back to keep fighting Voldemort.
Plus if he died, it sorta would have ruined the whole message of how love is more powerful than magic.

And I think there would have been a whole bunch of angry fans had that been the end. You spend 7 books invested in this one character, you want him to survive at the end.

He did die but love is stronger than death.

I always thought it would be better if he died in battle bringing down Voldemort - I think it would have had more of an emotional impact. (view spoiler)[ Trudi Canavan does this well at the end of her Black Magician trilogy and Chris Wooding does something similar in his Weavers of Saramyr series (hide spoiler)]

That said I don't mind what happened in Deathly Hallows, it worked well for the series (and he does kind of die after all!)

Laura wrote: "As much I love Harry Potter series, I found the ending almost rushed and without emotional impact. However do I believe that Harry should have died, it might have more a effective ending if JK did ..."

No, I don't agree. it is children story and it ruin everything if Harry just die. It is not heroic for him to die in war. He should alive, because his parents already die to protect him. The case is little bit different in Frodo from Lord of The Rings. Frodo is died because his task is over and he don't have purpose of life, so he died in wisdom way. The ending would be touching and wise, and there is another happiness from aragorn and arwen, sam, pippin, legolas, etc.

But not for Harry. Harry should live longer because he have something to do besides beat Voldemort. He want to be auror, have nice family, etc. If he died, it would be wounds for all of hogwarts. Too many important character died for Harry and Hogwarts. I agree with Margie arguments, Albus Dumbledore, Snape, Lupin, Tonks and Sirius also died for him right?

What would have been the point in investing in Harry's life over 7 books (or 8 movies) if he was just going to die at the end?
The whole moral of the story is love conquers all, and if Harry died, it wouldn't have conquered.

I don't think that Harry potter should die, that would just ruin the whole series in my opinion because all he did was fight Voldemort. But then again, a part of voldemort lives inside him and if he died he would see his parents again. So maybe a 50-50.

I hoped him and Voldy did die...oh well what's done is done though....i just wish the epilogue was a bit longer, i mean, c'mon, i thought it was about all those who survived the war.

OMG. I cried all the way through the book anyway. I'm so glad he didn't die!

I thought he did die.

Oh whoops.. merely wishful thinking on my part..

no

For me, J.K. Rowling has proved herself to be the only author who can makes her story lives in my heart without killing off the main character. And I'm just glad she didn't kill Harry.

I'm glad he didn't die... I mean, I get it that it would have been more emotional and dramatic and moral-y and whatnot but seriously? If Harry freaking Potter just freaking bit it at the end of the last book... it would have sabotaged my outlook on life. No joke.

I don't agree. The boy who lived had to have overcame Voldemrort, not be stricken down by him. If Harry would've died it would take away how love is more powerful than magic. Plus, LOTR and HP are two entirely different books with different authors, and each have different styles of writing.

As I progressed through the book I was starting to wonder if he would die or not (preparing myself mentally). If he had died in the Forest, which it seemed he might, it would've been really great if Neville had then suddenly risen to the occasion and finished off Voldermort. Remember the ambiguity (in Order of the Phoenix) about to whom the prophecy was directed. I think Neville and Harry shared a birth month, and his character was always a bit down-played throughout the books. That would've been the happy ending we all needed!

Ooooh I would have liked to see that! And if not Harry, then at least Ron or Hermione. They were the two next biggest characters so if they died it would get quite emotional.

I don't agree...

Though I also think the ending was thin and very devoid of emotion, The whole Voldemort/Harry situation was fine by me...

I found it somewhat confusing that Harry didn't die, as in, why the Killing Curse ended up killing only the horcrux instead of Harry. As opposed to the 'love conquering death' explanation, Harry being the true master of the deathly hallows would have been a better one but that didn't seem to be the case... someone correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation here. I must admit that I was also a bit disappointed with the 'resurrection' theme as I found it to be a thinly veiled messianic / christian reference that I felt the book could have done without.