No, she's never given us any hint as to how many will die. And even still, she's saying that it's two people in addition to those she already had slated to die. So it leaves one to wonder exactly how bloody this book will be!
And I totally agree with you on Voldemort's death. I've noticed the same observations and grinned. I'll never understand how people can honestly think that she'd end the series with Voldemort winning and Harry dying. Seriously, people, what kind of message do you think she's trying to convey to children? Some people have read too much fanfic. Or Shakespeare.
I caught a few things in there that sounded very positive about Harry's life expectancy, too. In particular, she joked about writing books about a middle-aged Harry without adding the standard disclaimer "assuming he lives." It was one of the interviewers who did that. A minor thing, but still notable as she's always been so very, very careful in interviews never to even make jokes about what might or might not happen to Harry without including strong disclaimers.
My next wondering is when we'll hear the title of Book 7. It was 2 years ago this week, I believe, that the Book 6 title was released. 5 months later she announced the book was with her publisher and announced the publication date. I get the feeling she's not that far along with Book 7 this time around.
Hermione is my odds-on-favorite to survive, too. That's based partly on interviews she's given, in which she seems to broadly hint in that direction.
The optimist in me says I can't imagine Ron, Hermione, Harry or Ginny dying. Anyone else is fair game. However, given that final line in Book 6 about them enjoying one last happy day together... *shudder.* If THAT wasn't ominous, I don't know what was.
And while I definitely see where you're coming from on the Arthur references, I still think those 4, have the strongest chances of survival. For one thing, she's got several different legends referenced throughout the series which she hasn't followed through on. She seems to like referencing mythology, history and folk lore frequently, but not necessarily using the background/plots attached to the namesakes.
I do think she considers the twins to be main characters, but they're actually among those whose deaths would devestate me most of all! So I'm declaring them off-limits. (Hear that, Jo?!)
Up until Book 5, I would've conceded the possibility for Harry to die at the end. But at this point I can't begin to imagine her killing him off. I'd bet my mutant cat that he survies the books.
Good point on the feminist thing! I hadn't thought about that, but I can definitely see your point now that you mention it. It's a lot easier to imagine her killing off the male characters than the female characters.
What are your thoughts on the Harry or Harry's scar is a horcrux theory, btw? I need to go re-read the Mugglenet/TLC interview, because I would swear JKR flat out denied that one.
I read somewhere that Harry cannot be a Horcrux because he would have to either A: zap the scar off his forehead and kill the Horcrux or B: kill Voldermort and then immediately kill himself in order for Voldermort to truly die.
That would be... traumatic for a "children's series." Even with JKR upping the age levels for the book, to systematically read Harry kill LV and then commit suicide would be a tough, difficult read!
(Plus, I'd be pissed. I'd understand the symbolism and the ideas behind him doing it... but man, I've invested so much in this series. It would be disappointing to have Harry die at the end.)
Heck, I think we may want to grab the LJ name now and start gradually getting it going! Now that she's releasing hints about the book, it seems time to start planning our discussion group again. (Even though you and I both know it won't be all that active till a few months before book 7 is released!)
As for the horcrux thing, I agree with you. I also think there's no way that Harry's a deliberate horcrux, and having an accidental one would screw up the "seven" thing, if you follow my logic.
That's been my theory about the horcrux, too. It didn't make sense to think that it could be an accidental thing. Plus, it just doesn't strike me as a plot device that would work, honestly. JKR tends to plan out every possible scenario with her plots, and an "accidental horcrux" just doesn't seem like something that would work for her.
And feel free to pimp away! I've been impressed with the people you interact with - they seem to be a logical, educated group, not at all prone to hissy fits over shipping and other silliness.
And while I've got you. Must we wait for Chapter 17? Really? I'm taking off on another business trip tomorrow, followed immediately by a family visit in TX. You wouldn't want me to face those two weeks of stress without a little F.H. to cheer me up, would you? Teehee! ;-)
It's unfortunate that all signs seemingly point to Ron, regarding a "Trio Member Death." I agree that she made it so clear in SS, that Ron not dying in Book 7 would come as a surprise. (This really makes me sad too, Ron is one of my favorite characters. It grates on my nerves the way they mis-manage him in the movies. That's another rant for another day...)
Joia and I had our Book 6 "Death Lists" last year, in our anticipation for book 6 to be released. I can't remember if either of us even mentioned Vance or Bones to die in 6, but they did come as a surprise. (At least to me, when we had our friend read the book jacket a week before the book was released, it seemed like she would knock off a character closer to Harry early.)
Honestly, I think Hagrid will die in Book 7. JKR commented that Sirius and Dumbledore needed to die in order to have Harry truly be on his own to fight Voldermort. It seems that Hagrid is his last tie to his old world of Hogwarts and youth. In addition, to Hagrid, I'm sure that she will kill Percy. If Percy doesn't die, I just feel that there are nine Weasleys, six of which (not even counting Ron and Ginny who are almost Order Members in Training) are in the Order.
The one thing that gives me hope about Ron is that JKR so soundly rebutted the Knight theory that has been popular since PS/SS.
I'm hoping Percy's the Weasley that gets knocked off, too, but it just seems to easy in some ways. Somehow, seeing Umbridge still working at the ministry (and reading JKR stating that she deliberately kept Umbridge on as a way of proving a point) makes me think things won't be quite so neat and tidy as for us to lose the snotty Weasley instead of, say, Ron or a twin.
As for Hagrid, I'm hoping that since he doesn't stand in between Harry and Voldemort in the same way that Dumbledore and Sirius did, that perhaps he'll make it. It doesn't seem to me that the Hero's Journey would be affected one way or the other by Hagrid dying, so perhaps we'll get to keep him.
And, Lauren, we really ought to go review our "death lists" one of these days, as well as our guesses about what was going to happen in Book 6. I don't think we ever went back over those after HBP was released!
I was so happy to see you had joined the group! (I've been a fan of your work since I stumbled upon your Ult-X fic a few years ago.) It's nice to have civil conversations about HP. Sometimes, it's seemingly so crazy and vast that Joia and I are scared.
I could completely understand Jo not wanting to kill any members of the trio. They feel like family members in a way, watching them grow over the course of seven books. It would be so sad to lose Ron, Hermione or Harry. Even the Weasley family by extension as well.
Joia - do you have a link to where Jo mentioned that the Ron/Knight theory was debunked? I don't know if I've read it and forgotten about it, or never read it at all.
And I totally agree with you on Voldemort's death. I've noticed the same observations and grinned. I'll never understand how people can honestly think that she'd end the series with Voldemort winning and Harry dying. Seriously, people, what kind of message do you think she's trying to convey to children? Some people have read too much fanfic. Or Shakespeare.
I caught a few things in there that sounded very positive about Harry's life expectancy, too. In particular, she joked about writing books about a middle-aged Harry without adding the standard disclaimer "assuming he lives." It was one of the interviewers who did that. A minor thing, but still notable as she's always been so very, very careful in interviews never to even make jokes about what might or might not happen to Harry without including strong disclaimers.
My next wondering is when we'll hear the title of Book 7. It was 2 years ago this week, I believe, that the Book 6 title was released. 5 months later she announced the book was with her publisher and announced the publication date. I get the feeling she's not that far along with Book 7 this time around.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The optimist in me says I can't imagine Ron, Hermione, Harry or Ginny dying. Anyone else is fair game. However, given that final line in Book 6 about them enjoying one last happy day together... *shudder.* If THAT wasn't ominous, I don't know what was.
And while I definitely see where you're coming from on the Arthur references, I still think those 4, have the strongest chances of survival. For one thing, she's got several different legends referenced throughout the series which she hasn't followed through on. She seems to like referencing mythology, history and folk lore frequently, but not necessarily using the background/plots attached to the namesakes.
I do think she considers the twins to be main characters, but they're actually among those whose deaths would devestate me most of all! So I'm declaring them off-limits. (Hear that, Jo?!)
Up until Book 5, I would've conceded the possibility for Harry to die at the end. But at this point I can't begin to imagine her killing him off. I'd bet my mutant cat that he survies the books.
Good point on the feminist thing! I hadn't thought about that, but I can definitely see your point now that you mention it. It's a lot easier to imagine her killing off the male characters than the female characters.
What are your thoughts on the Harry or Harry's scar is a horcrux theory, btw? I need to go re-read the Mugglenet/TLC interview, because I would swear JKR flat out denied that one.
Reply
I read somewhere that Harry cannot be a Horcrux because he would have to either A: zap the scar off his forehead and kill the Horcrux or B: kill Voldermort and then immediately kill himself in order for Voldermort to truly die.
That would be... traumatic for a "children's series." Even with JKR upping the age levels for the book, to systematically read Harry kill LV and then commit suicide would be a tough, difficult read!
(Plus, I'd be pissed. I'd understand the symbolism and the ideas behind him doing it... but man, I've invested so much in this series. It would be disappointing to have Harry die at the end.)
When do you want to open up Book7Thoughts? (Hee!)
Reply
As for the horcrux thing, I agree with you. I also think there's no way that Harry's a deliberate horcrux, and having an accidental one would screw up the "seven" thing, if you follow my logic.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And feel free to pimp away! I've been impressed with the people you interact with - they seem to be a logical, educated group, not at all prone to hissy fits over shipping and other silliness.
And while I've got you. Must we wait for Chapter 17? Really? I'm taking off on another business trip tomorrow, followed immediately by a family visit in TX. You wouldn't want me to face those two weeks of stress without a little F.H. to cheer me up, would you? Teehee! ;-)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
~ Joia, the stalking Queen
Reply
Joia and I had our Book 6 "Death Lists" last year, in our anticipation for book 6 to be released. I can't remember if either of us even mentioned Vance or Bones to die in 6, but they did come as a surprise. (At least to me, when we had our friend read the book jacket a week before the book was released, it seemed like she would knock off a character closer to Harry early.)
Honestly, I think Hagrid will die in Book 7. JKR commented that Sirius and Dumbledore needed to die in order to have Harry truly be on his own to fight Voldermort. It seems that Hagrid is his last tie to his old world of Hogwarts and youth. In addition, to Hagrid, I'm sure that she will kill Percy. If Percy doesn't die, I just feel that there are nine Weasleys, six of which (not even counting Ron and Ginny who are almost Order Members in Training) are in the Order.
Reply
I'm hoping Percy's the Weasley that gets knocked off, too, but it just seems to easy in some ways. Somehow, seeing Umbridge still working at the ministry (and reading JKR stating that she deliberately kept Umbridge on as a way of proving a point) makes me think things won't be quite so neat and tidy as for us to lose the snotty Weasley instead of, say, Ron or a twin.
As for Hagrid, I'm hoping that since he doesn't stand in between Harry and Voldemort in the same way that Dumbledore and Sirius did, that perhaps he'll make it. It doesn't seem to me that the Hero's Journey would be affected one way or the other by Hagrid dying, so perhaps we'll get to keep him.
And, Lauren, we really ought to go review our "death lists" one of these days, as well as our guesses about what was going to happen in Book 6. I don't think we ever went back over those after HBP was released!
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I could completely understand Jo not wanting to kill any members of the trio. They feel like family members in a way, watching them grow over the course of seven books. It would be so sad to lose Ron, Hermione or Harry. Even the Weasley family by extension as well.
Joia - do you have a link to where Jo mentioned that the Ron/Knight theory was debunked? I don't know if I've read it and forgotten about it, or never read it at all.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment