Doesn't it bother you that Harry came back from dead?

[[deleted user]]

Don't give me wrong. I am all for happy endings. But knowing that J.K. Rowling was going to KILL Harry Potter in the final book and she actually DIDN'T because she chickened out is wrong. He should have died in the forest and not experiencing after life chit-chat with Dumbledore and than come back. That would make sense. At least for me.

[♥ Alexia -Team Malec ♥]

No. He didn't die. He never did. Voldemort Killed the horcrux part of him-which wasn't meant to be there at all. It was a part of him, it was n thim. he had that chat with Dumbledore because he hallucinated and passed out.....Yeah. Harry did not die.

[Celina]

why would you kill him though? it wouldn't be "Harry Potter" without Harry Potter! Even though he did technically die there was a perfectly reasonable source of coming back to life, but if it was totally unrealistic then maybe my opinion would change..

[Sparrowlicious]

Err, I guess in itself it was quite alright for me that Harry wasn't killed.
I mean, the thing about the horcrux gets explained and stuff.
I think there was no need to kill Harry off, just because some fans spread the rumour.

[Nickle Love]

I didn't know Harry died or was supposed to die. I thought he passed out. :|

[Hannah]

It kind of made sense to me, actually. And plus, the books were in his perspective. It was all limited 3rd person, so the book really couldn't have gone on unless it was from his spirit's perspective, which would have been a little too weird. That's all from a literary point of view, so if you want to understand it that way...

[Martina]

Yes. I wanted Harry to die. There were other people who had bigger chance to survive than Harry and died anyway. It's a war, there should be sacrifices. Not that half of the adult fighting dies while only one fighting "child" gets killed (I only mourned Fred - or was it George? - if there was another important kid dead, I'm sorry, I don't remember it, I read the book a long time ago). Harry should have died. I don't know why, but he was meant to die. Probably because he survived I started disliking the end. If he didn't survive, the ending wouldn't be that pink. Just because they killed Voldemort doesn't mean they'll live happily ever after. Yet that's what it looks like in the end. Everything turned up perfect. That's not how it should be. If the series gets darker, you can't just magicaly make it as bright as the sun. And I also didn't like Harry much. He was cool at the beginning but later he was a bit dumb, so why should Snape, Remus, Tonks, Fred, Moody and many others die, while Harry survives?

[Alexandra]

Stanislava wrote: "Don't give me wrong. I am all for happy endings. But knowing that J.K. Rowling was going to KILL Harry Potter in the final book and she actually DIDN'T because she chickened out is wrong. He should..."

I don't think she chickened out at all. After we have read all seven books, I think we all can agree that JKR was a planner, and had this all figured out long before she actually wrote it. Harry had to solve the problem, and to solve the problem the Horcrux had to be killed. It was never him that died, only that part of Voldemort within him. They both were knocked unconcious - and it was only a part of Voldemort that died. I thought it was a fabulous twist in the plot, and made complete sense for the story and for his character.

[Bad Wolf]

HE DIDN'T DIE!!! SO HE COULDN'T COME BACK FROM THE DEAD! AM I THE ONLY ONE GETTING THIS!>?!>?!>?!?

[Cat]

I don't think he died, it was the part of Voldemort in him that died...so no it didn't really bother me.

[Allison]

Alexandra wrote: "Stanislava wrote: "Don't give me wrong. I am all for happy endings. But knowing that J.K. Rowling was going to KILL Harry Potter in the final book and she actually DIDN'T because she chickened out ..."

Thank you, you explained this very well :)

[Nat]

Hannah wrote: "It kind of made sense to me, actually. And plus, the books were in his perspective. It was all limited 3rd person, so the book really couldn't have gone on unless it was from his spirit's perspecti..."

third person is not his perspective. and there are parts in the books that harry isn't even in, so it would have been able to continue if he died.
but I like that he didn't die... ha

[Bad Wolf]

It was kind of in Harry/Third person. I mean, it stated that Harry was angry or whatever, not what Ron was.

[Emma]

Harry did not necessarily die, Voldemort only killed the part of harry that was Voldemort's horcrux. That said, if Harry had not gone willingly into the forest, Voldemort would not have killed the last horcrux, and therefore, Voldemort would have been unstoppable. The fact that Harry survived is somewhat contradictory to the death of nagini, is negated by the notion that he was the master of death.

[Bad Wolf]

Thats what I said.

[Sara]

LOL yes, it bugged me. I'm a big girl. I could've taken him dying. And knowing before hand that she had intended to kill him, but caved to "reader pressure" not to kill him, really annoyed me. When I read that part I was like, "Ohhh please."

BUT I do understand that if younger kids read it they might be upset over it and find the world a darker place, etc. etc. blah blah blah... I think she should've stuck to her guns.

[Merce]

Haha. No. Some people thought he would die. Some people predicted he would live. I bet on that he would die then come back to life which means I won the bet. Hahaha. Ah, feels great to be right all the time.

[Bad Wolf]

I just don't expect anything.

[Kris]

Is there a documented source for saying that she wanted to kill Harry? I have read a few interviews where she says she understands why authors do it & she may have entertained it, but nothing where she has stated that she ever actually planned to kill him.

At the end of the day it is a fantasy story. It is dark & there is tragedy...BUT I think it was important for Harry to remain the Boy Who Lived. There is a certain amount of balance in that, everything comes full circle etc.

Also, she has always maintained that she wrote the final chapter well before the first book. I'm pretty sure that means she never really actually meant to kill him off.

[[deleted user]]

Kristin wrote: "Is there a documented source for saying that she wanted to kill Harry? I have read a few interviews where she says she understands why authors do it & she may have entertained it, but nothing wher..."

Well yeah, that's the thing, she really did say that. That all along she was planning to actually kill Harry in the last book and than she didn't because all the fans that would be mad at her for doing so.

[Emily]

But he didn't die....Voldemort unwittingly destroyed his own horcrux. He would have had to use a second killing curse to actually kill Harry.

That said, I absolutely do not think Harry should have died, and largely from a literary point of view. Harry dying would necessitate that Voldemort survives and wins. Unless Ron or Hermione managed to kill nagini and then Voldemort, which is unlikely because it would have gone against the prophecy- only Harry could do it, not even Dumbledore could have managed it, and Dumbledore knew that. To have Harry die and Voldemort win would have completely undermined one of the absolute essential themes of the entire series- that good triumphs evil.

I never doubted that Harry would live and win. Sure, Rowling brings us into some dark places, but overall the tone of her books is hopeful, and like I said, good vanquishing evil is one of her main themes. You can't just drop that in the last chapter of a seven book series...

[Haleigh]

I read somewhere that J.K. couldn't kill Harry because a lot of people would be upset over it. And she said she probably couldn't bring herself to kill him anyway.
I don't think Harry should've died.
If Harry had died, then who would've killed Voldemort? Yes, they all rebelled when he "died", but who would've won the duel with Voldemort? Voldemort or one of his Death Eaters would probably blast away anyone who tried. One of the reasons Harry won was because Voldemort was afraid of Harry. He knew Harry had something he did not. He knew he had survived his killing curse. That scared him. He panicked and died by his own re-bounding curse.
And I agree with Emily, the whole series is about hope, and how you should never lose it. There had to be a happy ending.

[Emily]

Also, yeah, where are you getting this quote that she was specifically going to kill Harry in book 7? Because I know she said she considered killing Harry, Ron, or Hermione halfway into the series, but thought more seriously about killing Ron...here's the quote..

'Funnily enough, I planned from the start that none of them would die,' said the author in the special feature on the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 DVD. The interview was leaked online ahead of the DVD's release later this year. The writer goes on to say: 'Then midway through, which I think is a reflection of the fact that I wasn't in a very happy place, I started thinking I might polish one of them off. 'Out of sheer spite: "There, now you definitely can't have him any more." 'But I think in my absolute heart of heart of hearts, although I did seriously consider killing Ron, I wouldn't have done it,' she added.

So yeah, she considered killing Ron, and not necessarily in book 7, but it sounds to me like she didn't do it because she didn't want to. I mean, I think Rowling proved time and again that she wasn't afraid to kill off fan favorites...so I'm sure that even if she did seriously think of killing Harry ( which yeah, I personally have never read her say that), I'm sure fans' reaction wasn't her only reason for not doing it.

[N.O.H.A]

It's all about magic so why should we be realistic?! ^_^ He came back from death for a reason that the wound doesn't belong to Voldemort so where's the problem !! I think it's a very good ending. Besides there's no point that harry should die or then evil will conquer good..it wouldn't have been a fair ending for what harry has suffered or lost ^_^

[Tim]

I interpreted the scene with Dumbledore that it was Harry's choice as to whether he would stay dead or not. I thought he was on the very verge of death and he got to choose whether to go back to continue the fight. Or he could board a train and not come back to his body.

[N.O.H.A]

It has good implication sir his insistence on fighting back..has been always brave. J.k. Rowling has the most wild imagination I've ever seen. Harry Potter Forever ^_^ <3

[Donna]

Harry didn't die.. just the part of Voldemort's soul in him did. I think the scene with Dumbledore was to make Harry realise he wasn't dead because Harry thought he had to die to kill Voldemort.

[♥ Alexia -Team Malec ♥]

He didn't 'Technically,' die.

[Ngxr]

it totally does.he should have died and never came back.that would be more daramatic

[Kris]

Stanislava wrote: Well yeah, that's the thing, she really did say that. That all along she was planning to actually kill Harry in the last book and than she didn't because all the fans that would be mad at her for doing so.
..."

That is not a documented source. Emily quoted one of the interviews I was talking about. Ron is really the one that slipped by, but never in print or on a televised interview has she stated that she was going to kill Harry but changed her mind. Unless I missed it. That's what I was asking for. And again, to agree with Emily, killing Harry would not have made sense from a literary standpoint. He is the touchstone of the series.

[Jess]

As far as I remember, Harry and the piece of Voldemort's soul both died, but because Harry was master of all three Deathly Hallows, he was the master of death and could choose whether to give up and stay dead or wake up and fight back. I think the train station is meant to represent his having that choice to make.

So yes I do think Harry both died and came back, but I think it makes complete sense and his being given a choice fits into the story very nicely, and the story would have suffered had he flat out died.

I read it so long ago, I could very well be wrong about all of that.

[Ursula]

I don't think Harry died. In any case in fantasy fiction the world is what the author makes it. I thought it was a very powerful and moving episode.

[Jordan]

He didn't die. He is still able to block Voldemort's spell because of the moment before when he used to stone and talked to his dead friends and family. he got that love to help him.

[Jess]

I didn't know it was such a popular opinion that Harry never actually dies, if that's the case what is your interpretation of the scene where he talks to Dumbledore?

[Jordan]

I think it was all just a message dumbledore sent in his head. it was in his head, but it was real

[Angela]

I don't think he technically died. But I also don't think he was hallucinating either. It's like when people almost die during surgery and they see the light or whatever. He could have died but he choose to survive.

I don't feel cheated, I actually thought it was rather clever. If she didn't do it that way the whole Horcrux story line would have crumble. Harry HAD to have part of a Horcrux inside of him because of how they are created.

I just thought it was amazing how well planned out the entire series was. It's quite fascinating actually.

[Jordan]

ya, i don't understand why the topic is so important! i meann thats how it was written

[Carina]

I always thought it would have been better if Harry had died in the process of killing Voldemort. There is another series (view spoiler)[by Trudi Canavan called The Black Magician Trilogy (hide spoiler)] where a main character was killed and I was (and know from various places on the internet that others were as well) so shocked - but it made the aftermath once the forces of evil were defeated more real. Not sure why I always thought it should have been Harry who died as opposed to Ron or Hermione but still.

In terms of whether Harry died or not, I always thought that he did (otherwise was there any real need for the Resurrection Stone?) and that the 'scene' with Dumbledore was something like purgatory and that due to Harry 'mastering' the Deathly Hallows he was given the choice as to whether to continue or not.

[Mitra]

I don't believe that she chickened out of it, considering how I believe that the plan was to never kill Harry off in the end. Was it? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm glad that's the way it ended, it's the way it should have ended, and it was a satisfying ending. Him dying would not have been satisfying whatsoever, it wouldn't have come full circle to me at all. Plus, yes, I am a sucker for happy endings, so I was very pleased with the outcome lol.

I don't think Harry necessarily died...I think he had a near death experience, or maybe he was in the middle of death, and living, and he had to make this choice, as Dumbledore said I believe. He either could keep holding on, or go back. From what I remember in the book, it sounded more like he died there than in the movie.

[Melissa]

Nickle wrote: "I didn't know Harry died or was supposed to die. I thought he passed out. :|"

I was under the impression he passed out, too.

[Amaranth]

After the final conversation with Dumbledore it also sort of implied that the whole event could've just been all in his head. He also told Harry that he could've "gone on" if he chose, so I just thought that Harry entered some sort of limbo but didn't die all the way. That way he could live and finally take out Voldemort which is what this whole series led to. I liked the way Rowling made the ending; it was an unexpected way to get rid of the horcruxes (which we know harry is one) while fulfilling Harry's destined role. It also didn't disappoint me when I read it. It finally accomplished the series' goal and created this sort of happy ending (I always love it when the protagonist survives), so it didn;t really bother me when Harry "died". It was the epilogue that bothered me. I thought that was just an extra that should have been left out and keep the rest of Harry's life left to the imagination.

[Rachel]

Alexia -Team Malec :) wrote: "No. He didn't die. He never did. Voldemort Killed the horcrux part of him-which wasn't meant to be there at all. It was a part of him, it was n thim. he had that chat with Dumbledore because he hal..."

I agree! And btw I love Team Malec :)

[David]

I think the rumor that she planned to kill Harry came from an interview in which people asked Rowling about what would happen after the last book, and she said something like, "You're assuming Harry survives the last book."

That is, she never said she would kill Harry; she just reminded readers that she'd never said she wouldn't. Which is a hard thing for writers, to get the reader to feel like the risk is real, and the heroes might actually die. But because Harry Potter was such a phenom, that one interview got blown up way out of context, and people flipped.

[Angela]

I also don't think that him NOT dying had anything to do with the resurrection stone. Earlier in book 7 when they learned the story about the Peverell brothers- they said that those who the resurrection stone brought back weren't really alive. My personal interpretation is the stone served to bring him support, when he needed it the most, not to save his life.

[Rashika (is tired)]

it did... it made me feel bad that none of the others could come back but he got to come back :/

[Eva]

but if harry was an unintentional horcrux, who is to say there weren't more of those? bit of a sticky point. i am happy he didn't die though.

[Hannah]

Nat wrote: "Hannah wrote: "It kind of made sense to me, actually. And plus, the books were in his perspective. It was all limited 3rd person, so the book really couldn't have gone on unless it was from his spi..."

Limited 3rd person is in his perspective. It's when you know all his thoughts, even though it doesn't actually say "I think" or whatever. Yes, there are parts where he wasn't in, but not many. They were mostly in the beginning of the books anyway, and only done for the reader's understanding.

[Jess]

Angela wrote: "I also don't think that him NOT dying had anything to do with the resurrection stone. Earlier in book 7 when they learned the story about the Peverell brothers- they said that those who the resurre..."
I think the stone only worked for him because he had all three. The brother who used it only had the stone so he wasn't ' master of death'

[Jess]

Hannah wrote: "Nat wrote: "Hannah wrote: "It kind of made sense to me, actually. And plus, the books were in his perspective. It was all limited 3rd person, so the book really couldn't have gone on unless it was ..."

Were there any scenes Harry wasn't in that didn't turn out to be a dream he was having? I can't remember.

[Jeni]

I always believed he died for a bit there in order for the horcrux part of him to be separated out. He chose to come back, much like a near-death experience.

Also, remember, the horcrux wasn't entirely dead in the "heaven" scene with Dumbledore. It keeps mewling and making sounds and will (presumably) die of its own accord now that it has no host.

So, yes, I think it was necessary for him to die for a minute to ensure that separation occurred. Just my own humble interpretation. :)