Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter, #7) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows question


179 views
Do you think all the deaths were necessary?
Cookie Cookie Nov 14, 2011 09:26AM
First of all, do not read this if you haven't read all the books yet. Do you think all the deaths through-out the series were necessary? Mainly talking about big characters like Tonks,Lupin,Snape,Sirius,Dobby or Hedwig, and I don't care what you say, but Hedwig and Dobby are big characters.



Absolutely, J.K isn't about mollycoddling the readers feelings, although she did keep the three main characters.
I think it was important to her that people who read the novel felt at least a little of the grief that Harry, and Hogwarts, and a lot of the Wizarding World were feeling. Wasn't it supposed to be equivalent to World War Two? Sure Hitler (Voldemort) was 'defeated' but both sides still lost their friends. I think I would have felt ripped off is she kept too many popular characters alive. Plus, Hedwig's death was pretty symbolic, right?


Romina (last edited Dec 16, 2011 04:30PM ) Dec 08, 2011 06:14PM   1 vote
I loved the characters, but I can understand the need for their deaths. Every one of these events represents something for Harry, they're not just killed for the "drama" factor.

Hedwig's death contributes to the feeling of isolation and sadness at the beginning of book 7. As Tim mentioned before, Dobby's death curves that disorientation that Harry feels and pushes him into action. Not to mention, Dobby's burial creates the first good impression about Harry on the goblin, which is essential.

Sirius's death I see as some sort of sacrifice, a way for Harry to understand how important it is not to trust his "dreams" from Voldemort. Also it contributes to the feeling of dread and future resentment between a myriad of characters, giving the whole story added depth.

Snape can't defy Voldemort forever (behind his back) and still make it out alive. If he survives you might think the risks he was taking for Harry, by deceiving Voldemort, are not that great. When in fact he is risking his life at every step and it's quite lucky he made it this far.

I was a bit unsure about Tonks & Lupin when it happened in the book. But I guess Rowling wanted a chance to imagine - through Teddy - what Harry's life might have been like under different circumstances. Teddy will be much better taken care of and have a completely different life than Harry had, when he was orphaned.

Sometimes some of these characters surviving, would have seriously influenced the following development of the series. For example, if Sirius had survived the ministry battle, how would the first half of the last book gone? The trio wouldn't have had a chance to stay at Grimauld Place and figure stuff out on their own if it were still the "Order's" meeting place.

As a general idea I think you have to see that this battle Harry is fighting is not without loss, to make it truly mean something. It's not an easy road, it's painful, sorrow-filled and at times quite desperate and you're meant to share Harry's pain.


without deaths the end would seem too happy. some lost are essential for the book i think.


It depends... I think Sirius's death was unnecessary because it was soooooo unfair to Harry, but it built up in his development.
As for Hedwig and Dobby I thought that was just so cruel to kill them off.
Fred's death killed a peice of me....
I don't think both Tonks and Lupin should have died, maybe just one of them would have been better than both (I mean, seriously they just had a kid!!!).
Cedric's death was another death that I thought could have been prevented and was unneccessary.

5174556
Cookie I know what you mean about Fred! My favorite side characters. I do agree that Sirius and Cedric deaths were necessary to get the story moving along. I ...more
Dec 21, 2011 11:07PM · flag

Well in order to create the mood, of a war she needed to kill people. It caused the mood. Without it, it wouldn't have had the effect it did. It needed to show the way this caused all the damage. If only one person died it wouldn't be the same in mood, relationships, and the end of it.


Yes. It made the book seem more realistic and less like a story where all the bad guys die and the good guys live happily. It makes the books more respectable even though some of my favorite characters died and I sobbed for days after. It made me realize that this does happen in real life.


deleted member Jun 09, 2012 12:08PM   0 votes
No. Especially not Sirius.


absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they shape the book and the characters they loose alot but the deaths make the series a little more complete


Sometimes I think about how Percy should've died instead of Fred. Perhaps he should have died while protecting Fred; in that way, he would be seen as a hero in the eyes of the Weasleys and other bystanders.
Other than that, I do believe the other deaths were necessary. Dobby's death and Hedwig's death, to name a bare few, did carry some symbolic meaning. Just as an example.


deleted member Dec 04, 2011 11:21PM   0 votes
YES. it's for the drama!


yes
i dont like them
but if no one dies
would you continue reading the book
or would you say
this is so unrealistic
its for little kids who couldnt handle death


Yes, it's a war, people die, and it wouldn't be believable if all his friends made it out alive. Plus, it adds emotion. I cried.


I think the body count was too high. I mean she killed the friggin' house elf!


well, she had to kill somebody, if nobody died, it would be a bit bad. snape was necessary, I guess the weasleys are too big of a family to let everybody live, so one of them just had to. as for lupin and tonks, I coudn't care less. better both then just one of them I guess. I never understood Colin thought. he was such a minor charecter and wasn't even supposed to be there. I could live without that death. I always thought it would be better to make one of the Malfoys die. ... well, they just came of it, I don't believe they got to azkaban. so quite unfair. they were his supporters after all. Dumbledore was necessary, Sirius too I think.


Tonks should be alive :(
Dobby was killed because he was very affectionate and readers would be very sad ;)
But it's reality...


I understand that Snape's dead was necessarily, but I still absolutely háte it :p But I think that every death was there for a reason. Rowling didn't killed everybody, just because she felt so.


I don't think it's a question of whether they were all 'necessary' so much as a question of whether they all had meaning or significance, which they did.


well, yes. as much as i hate how all the characters who died are gone, it makes the story realistic and helps portray just how evil Voldemort and the Death Eaters are.


Jen (last edited Nov 28, 2011 05:07PM ) Nov 28, 2011 05:07PM   0 votes
I hated Remus and Tonks died. Especially for Remus. I personally felt that his death was like a slap in the face. He was such a great character and I loved him so much and suddenly we see his dead body on the floor with no explanation or anything.


Yes. If no-one died, then it wouldn't be believable or interesting. Every-one die's at some point, and these characters died a brave death. R.I.P to all of them.


fred lupin n tonks need not have died its very sad


you forgot to mention one big charactare
fread
no not all the death were necisary hedwig should not have got kiled

6291696
Shelby Hedwig dying was just to horrible...
I want an owl (wow, real on track, Shelby).

Dec 07, 2011 09:22AM · flag

The killing should be done, without it there wouldn't have been a war. I would have liked Lupin and Tonks to get a death that we heard about, I'd like to know how they did die. They had to die, when there wasn't any of the trio dieing.


I think they were necessary to make it seem more realistic, because its war and someones has to die.


No. All the deaths were not necessary. But there was a war going on, and during wars people die whether it's necessary or not. Would you have been touched by the book otherwise?


She should've killed everyone. Just one big, wizard atom bomb. And then she could've laughed at everyone who made her so ridiculously rich.


Yes because it was a war and people who were important to Harry should died so he would get the strength to defeat Voldemort. But Fred's death was unnecessary! Poor George, living without his twin, and what is the Wizarding World without the Weasley Twins? =(


I, unfortunately, think all the deaths were necessary. But, did I personally want all the deaths? No. I miss Dobby and Fred! *Cries in corner* WAHHHH! Sorry.

But, Fred's death was necessary. He helped Percy get accepted into the family easily.

And, Dobby's taught Harry to take charge and stand up for what you believe in. It was that little kick Harry needed to defeat Voldemort.


I think so. Life doesn't have a happy ending, well not always, so it makes a lot of sense. She wanted readers to know that sometimes people will die and it won't be happy.


yes, the book and the movie would not be the same without all of them


Well, it is a war. People die in wars, families are divided, homes are destroyed, and we lose the people we love. It's sad but true.


I think they were necassary in there own ways. For example, if Fre hadn't died the Weasleys might not have accepted Percy back into the family as easliy.

I think Teddy (Lupin) sounds a lot like Harry - both his parents died because of Voldemort. I'm assuming J.K. Rowling had Lupin and Tonks die for a sort of impact on Harry. He is Teddy's godfather, and without an actual Father, a lot like Teddy's dad. I think it would help Teddy and Harry bond becausethey both went through somewhat of the same thing, and would also have Harry help Teddy alot.


I love J.K Rowling and praise her for writing this series, but all the deaths weren't neccesary. For example, both Lupin and Tonks shouldn't have been killed. I think one of them should have been left to live and take care of baby Teddy. Colin Creevey shouldn't of been killed either, his personality was very....interesting. Even though I never fancied Crabbe his death shocked me. Two deaths that saddened me and weren't neccesary were first, the loyal owl Hedwig. Harry and Hedwig had been through so much, Hedwig was the one that kept Harry company while he was stuck at the Dursley's. The last and saddest was the death of Dobby, a free elf. I truly thought Dobby would make it to the end, considering his loyalty and sacrifice to keep Harry safe.


i believe it seems more real with the deaths . as about tonks and loupin it woldnt be nice to die only one of them case the other would be unhappy... i felt sorry for the twin brother i dont remember the name :P after all it was a war not only the one side loses people


Lupin and Tonks should not have killed


You will notice that Dobby's death was a real turning point for Harry. He'd been confused, on the run, unsure what to do before then. After Dobby's death he finally took charge and grew into the leader he was meant to be. Dobby being killed was the kick in the solar plexus Harry needed to find a way to succeed against Voldemort.


I think so. It makes it more realistic and believable.


back to top