Paul has been saying that it would be a bad move for J.K. Rowling to kill Harry Potter in the last book. While it could make for an exciting and depressing ending, the publisher would lose out on potential sales as future readers won’t want to bother reading a whole series knowing the main character dies.
My 12-year-old has lost interest in reading the series, but Paul is currently reading the seventh book to my 7-year-old who is into it and even tries to read it even though it’s above his level.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he decides to read them again when he is ready to read at that level — but his (my three-year-old, too, I hope) and future generations won’t want to bother reading the series knowing Harry dies at the end (like no one is going to find this out before picking up the series).
Paul believes that’s why The Chronicles of Narnia series didn’t catch on as much as it could have. Few people read beyond The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because of what happens at the end of the series plus a couple of the books weren’t as good. A Wrinkle in Time also had this problem — the books that followed weren’t as good.
Rowling has done a superb job with the flow and making each book an exciting read. Sure, some books aren’t as strong as others, but they’ve withstood the challenge of hanging on to the reader because she planned them as a series from the start just like The Lord of the Rings.
To ensure a series of books survives for years after they’re completed not when they’re released, authors must:
- Write an ending that won’t turn away future readers
- Make each book strong
- Look at the whole series before writing the first book
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.]
Consider Six Feet Under. The main character died in the last season (not the last episode, however). I had been watching the show on DVD and knowing this fact lowered my interest. I’m still watching the series — but I believe the show won’t have as many people renting / buying the series as it would have had the character lived.
We know Rowling is killing a couple of characters, but if her publisher wants the books to become a classic like The Lord of the Rings, then Harry must live.
I disagree. JKRowling need never sell another book in her lifetime and she knows it, so it wouldn;’t afffect her thought process one whit.
Excellent point, Ed. But doesn’t she want her books to be read for a lifetime?
They will whether she wants them to or not, I think. It’s been 9 years since the first book was published, and that’s a lot more than a 9-day wonder. People will be talking about and reading these books for the next 50 years at least. As children’s books go, these are definitely the king of the new crop and are quite timeless.
‘…neither can live while the other survives…’ dun tell me that jkr wil make sure that the OTHER that survives is voldemort. neither can live while the other survive means that someone WILL survive…it is the prophecy that she made and honestly from my point of view, it means that good (harry) will triumph over evil (voldemort). the prophecy didnt say ‘the one who has the power to vanquish the dark lord wil have to offer his life for neither can live while the other survives..’
it was a clue and it was left for the readers so there wont be any surprises…..i think harry wil live just because voldemort cannot win the battle.
Parker has a point, but I interpreted it differently. “neither can live while the other survives” means that they both must live, or they both must die. Remember that Harry and Voldemort are forever linked by the shared blood from the ritual in the graveyard at the end of Goblet Of Fire that brought Voldemort back to strength. So if Harry lives, Voldemort can never be defeated.
What about Neville? Remember Neville could have been the one the prophecy spoke of. Could perhaps, Neville and Voldemort die and Harry lives? Just a theory Paul and I have been fiddling with for a while.
This will make my first comment on my wife’s blog. (Sad, I know). I just want to clarify a couple of points.
I have stated that I think that it would be unwise for Harry to die at the end. The author will do as she wishes, however, if Harry dies, I do not think that future generations will be as willing to read the series. The example Meryl gave of “The Chronicles of Narnia,” had I known how the whole series ended, I wouldn’t have bothered. It made the whole series seem pointless. Face it, how many people would have picked up the final volume of “The Lord of The Rings” if the newspaper headlines had read “Frodo Dies!” I agree, that Book 7 will be huge and will have huge sales, but the series is over with Book 7.
30 years from now when my grandchildren are looking for that book series to read, are they going to pick up a series that could be summarized as, “The story of a boy who’s parents are killed when he is 1, goes to live a horrible childhood with aunt and uncle, finds a slight glimmer of hope when he discovers a whole new world in which he belongs, only to have it stripped away from him slowly as most of his closest friends and mentors are killed and in the end must die himself before the age of 18?” Now, main characters die, I have no problem with that, but in their death there is something redeeming and in most cases they are not a child. (No matter what you may think, Harry is still chronologically a child). For those who are fans of Orson Scott Card: how bad would have “Ender’s Game” sucked had Ender died at the end, and that was just a single book, not a 7 volume library?
Maybe if there wasn’t such a vested interest in Harry, it would be easier to accept. For example, if the characters were written more like an ensemble as in the book “The Stand” by Stephen King. When a main character (Nick Andros) is killed off suddenly and unexpectedly, it’s ok, because you have a vested interest in several other characters. I can’t say this about the Potter series. We know very little about the other characters, outside of their interaction with Harry. The books are only from Harry’s point of view.
As for the prophecy, “neither can live while the other survives,” doesn’t mean that can’t both die.
I think that ‘Neither can live while the other survives’ means that in order for one of them to lead a normal life and reach his potential, the other must be dead. I think that’s clear enough. Neville has no part of the Prophecy, since he wasn’t the one chosen by Voldemort, and the Prophesy is pretty clear that there are only two people involved.
An interesting twist though- if Neville IS part of the Prophecy, it could mean that Harry and Neville are the two involved. This might mean curtains for Neville!
that’s just ridiculous, Ed R.
Which part? 😉 I agree about the Neville/Harry thing.
I totally disagree. This essay is looking at it as if death has to be the end. In the Potterverse, it isn’t. If Harry goes on to that next great adventure, with his parents, Dumbledore and Sirius, this could work well. Give Jo a bit more credit.
“My 12-year-old has lost interest in reading the series, but Paul is currently reading the seventh book to my 7-year-old who is into it…” Huh, he is reading the seventh book??? I think Meryl meant the sixth book??
I don’t think Harry will die – I heard that JKR told a fan that HArry will not die back when she used to do book tours in the USA. (Book 1 & @ timeframe)…
Yes, 7th! (blush) I guess I had “7th” on the brain… I meant the last one released.
“Neither can live while the other survives” means that voldemort refuses to have someone mnore poerful than him sop he won’t rest until he’s killed harry or been killed himself..and Harry won’t rest until he get voldemort back for all the pain he’s caused and the lives hes ruined..that and you can’t exactly have a peaceful life when someone has got their heart set on killing you
I think that if J.K Rowling wants to kill off Harry then she can. After all this is her series, some people don’t care about the money they make. I believe J.K. Rowling is doing what she loves and what she feels is right. After all the phrophecy clearly states that “neither can live while the other survives.” I think that means that both of them are going to have to die. I do love her books and I hate to see them end, but as a writer myself I understand the reason behind ending a series.
JKR can have it both ways- with a death and ressurection:
Harry will die. Voldemort will cackle in triumph. He will turn to attack Ron and Hermione. We will go inside Harry’s POV as he dies. He sees Sirius, his mother, Dumbledore. He feels enormous love. To Voldemorts horror, Harry rises from where he has fallen. The scar is gone. It was a Horcrux. Voldemort only killed the last free bit of his own soul. Filled with the love of all who have died that he might live, Harry embraces Voldemort who dissolves into ash just like quirrell. The end. 🙂
Your theory actually makes sense! We know there are still horcruxes out there and though it’s Voldemort’s soul, it should work for Harry considering their connection.
But you have to kill someone to actually have a horcrux and since Voldemort already had the seven horcruxes before Harry was even born. But even if they were bonded, don’t you think that part of Harry’s soul would die if Voldemort’s horcruxes were finished off, and since there have been 3 horcruxes defeated already, there would only be four parts of both of their souls. I’m talking about the ring, the diary, and since R.A.B took the locket that would make three. As for the prophecy, it wouldn’t have been true if Voldemort hadn’t decided to kill off Harry’s parents, so of course he wants revenge. ‘The other servives while the other will live’ is about the battle, so Voldemort could kill Ron and Hermione and then Harry kills Voldemort. After that, Harry could comit suiside in all the sadness.
I feel that “neither can live while the other survives” means that both can survive (exist, a life without fulfillment, without reaching their goals H.: End L.V. life before he causes much more damage. L.V.: conquer the wizarding world and separate the muggleborns from it (by death or exile) and revenge himself on H.), or one can live (ie: fulfill their goals and go on to live to the fullest, or both can die.
We need to keep in mind that not only was HP originally a childrens book but JKR is a mother and her children will one day read it. She may stay away from a ‘deadly’ dramatic ending as suggested for thier sakes.
The point I have in favour of Harry surviving is that at the charity reading in New York JKR was asked which 5 characters would you most like to meet?’ or something to that extent. She said Harry, Ron and Hermione and THEN asked if they had to be alive at the end of the series going on to name Dumbledore and Har. For this reason I feel it is more likely that Hagrid would die than Harry (or Ron and Hermione).