Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Harry Potter, #4) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire discussion


213 views
Harry's Horrors

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Tess It was really frightening when Cedric and Harry got transported into the graveyard. I hated how Mad Eye was portrayed to be a good guy all that time, but it was really just a guy drinking polyjuice potion. I liked how Wormtail came back; he's a very interesting character. I can't believe that voldemort is alive again, more like "alive."


message 2: by [deleted user] (new)

I just felt sorry that Harry had to see Cedric die infront of him in the graveyard. Cedric shouldn't have died in my opinion.


Jana I think that J. K. Rowling kill off too many good characters. Pretty much all my favorites die in book 7. (I won't tell who, though) I think that she shouldn't just have everyone in Harry's life croak. Is it supposed to motivate him or something?


Tami No, it is to let the characters in the books (and the readers) realize, some things are worth dying for. Yes, it sucks. I can totally see JK Rowling crying, devastated as she wrote the books.


Sahar @ jana....it would have been silly and awkward if all the bad guys die and all the gud guys stay .. it would have been to predictable..umm....to make the story interesting and mysterious Rowling added these sad parts...in which u lose ur loved ones....and thats how she's showing how strong harry is .....


Becky YEAH, i agree with Sahar.i think that it's a life lesson that people can take into account. Somethings have to be sacrificed for!!


Sarah Triple agreed. Even though there were some pretty devestating deaths, it would have been way to corny to just have all the good guys live. I think Rowling killed just the right amount of characters.


Becky yeah... it would be like saying "well all the bad guys are dead now... what are we going to do??' yeah


Sarah Hurray! We've killed everyone! Lollipops and dandellions, the good guys always win!

Sooo not going to happen.


Becky yeah exactly


Becky haha


Bjorn-The Last Viking lol. I agree with all of you. She killed off the right amount. I personally. Wish Fred (or George) didnt die. I forget witch. And another person she should of kept alive was Tonks. :P MY personal favorite.


Becky Did Fred and George die?? OH YEAH.... i remember now. Yes I liked tonks!


message 14: by Emma (new) - rated it 5 stars

Emma But another thing that we have to remember is that they are in a war. And the sad reality of it is, people die in battle. So not only did J.K. have many important deaths to add interest and to prove Harry's strength, but to showcase to the readers what the characters are dealing with. They are no longer having little adventures in a castle with their friends and teachers to look out for them. The losses of some of our favorite characters (it was Fred who died, silly) only intesifies the feeling of war.


Linda Yeah, people die in war but if thats the case why didn't she kill one of the "main" character's like Hermione, Ron, Neville or Luna. She killed the ones that quite truthfully would be the most dramatic at the time, I mean everybody expected one of the weasleys to die they didn't expect it to be fred and tonks shouldn't have even been there, most Mother's would have stayed with their new-born baby instead of rushing to war! Plus it would be more realistic to kill one of the prof. instead of the last tie Harry had to his parents (Lupin) I mean she had already killed Sirius and Peter died in the 7th one and so did Snape (if you want to count the last two) so she might want to have thought about that instead of having a blood-bath which is basically what the last book is!


message 16: by Emma (last edited Sep 03, 2011 11:29AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Emma I'm not sure I really understand your point Linda. Of course she had her reasons in choosing which characters to die. Remember, Lupin played a part after his death, when he appeared to Harry in the forest. Those people that the Resurection Stone brought back all had some connection to Harry, and J.K. obviously wanted Lupin to be one of the ones there. And perhaps Tonks should'nt have been there, but that wasn't her character. Authors can't make allowances for their characters just because a reader wants them to do something else. In the end, the reality created by the author is what matters, and if J.K. wanted to have Lupin, Tonks, Fred, and others die, then that is the way it should be. It is in fact, her story.


message 17: by Linda (last edited Sep 03, 2011 01:33PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Linda doesn't mean I have to like it and as I pointed out in my other post there was way to much drama, it was a lot more dramatic than any of the other books, I kinda got the feeling that she was going for an epic type feel (think the Lord of the rings) but she didn't quite know how to do it.


message 18: by Emma (new) - rated it 5 stars

Emma Hmmm, well I respect your opinion, but I must disagree. I don't think anybody could have crafted a better way to end the series. It was wonderfully well written and showed her growth as an author. I didn't find it overly-dramatic at all, in fact. I mean, yes, there is going to be drama during a final battle scene. But there were quiet moments embedded in the drama, and I loved that. She finished the saga beautifully, in my opinion.


message 19: by Linda (last edited Sep 03, 2011 07:21PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Linda There were good parts, I have to concede that.
((nice talking to you, by the way))


message 20: by Emma (new) - rated it 5 stars

Emma you too. always good to have stimulating conversation. :)


message 21: by Tim (new) - rated it 5 stars

Tim Schultz As far as I can tell, Rowling made a point to kill off any and all parental/guardian figures in Harry's life. His parents were first, then Sirius, Dumbledore, and finally the guardian he didn't even know he had, Snape. As long as those characters were alive, Harry always had someone to fall back on, he had people who would have shielded him from Voldemort. Harry had to be alone at the final confrontation, so all of those support figures had to go.


Chelseabelle Tim wrote: "As far as I can tell, Rowling made a point to kill off any and all parental/guardian figures in Harry's life. His parents were first, then Sirius, Dumbledore, and finally the guardian he didn't eve..."

YES. Totally agree. The only thing that would comfort me when Dumbledore died wa that Harry's character couldn't develop any further if Ddore lived. It's sad, but true.


Grace driver this is an awesome book i love it soooo much


Ciara Yes, but that's the whole excitment of it...being afraid, worried, e.t.c. Favourite series =D


message 25: by E.E. (new) - rated it 4 stars

E.E. Well, if Voldemort hadn't come back or Wormtail not gone back to his side how boring would that be? And if Dumbledore hadn't died... he would have died somehow anyway with that hand. And I agree with Tim and Chelseabelle.


Sharefah Ahhh that scene in the graveyard was soo scary and creepy but it made it awesome imagine the books without these creepy scenes they are what make the books more enjoyable and they actually make you wanna read more till you get to the happy ending


Shubham Sarah wrote: "Triple agreed. Even though there were some pretty devestating deaths, it would have been way to corny to just have all the good guys live. I think Rowling killed just the right amount of characters."

Agree.


Shubham Emma wrote: "I'm not sure I really understand your point Linda. Of course she had her reasons in choosing which characters to die. Remember, Lupin played a part after his death, when he appeared to Harry in t..."

Yes. True..


back to top