Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Book 7 Deaths Spoiler
Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291487] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 20:34
oj  
Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
yet:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1

JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.

oj
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291488 ] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 20:55
pooter  
oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
> yet:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>
> JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>

Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291495 ] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 21:33
oj  
pooter wrote:
> oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> > Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
> > yet:
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
> >
> > JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
> >
>
> Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.

.... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
die that I didn't intend to die."

So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.

You read it again.

oj
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291499 ] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 22:07
pooter  
oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>
> pooter wrote:
> > oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> > > Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
> > > yet:
> > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
> > >
> > > JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
> > >
> >
> > Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>
> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
> die that I didn't intend to die."
>
> So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.
>
> You read it again.
>

You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?

Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291500 ] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 22:12
oj  
pooter wrote:

> You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
>
> Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(

What the hell are you talking about? The article says:
"The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very
slightly," she said in an interview broadcast on Monday on Britain's
Channel 4. "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die
that I didn't intend to die."

Since I wasn't actually there, I have to assume that the direct quote
from the interview that was broadcast is fact. If you have something
that says otherwise, feel free to post it.

oj
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291501 ] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 22:25
zoltan47  
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:07:16 +0100, pooter <a [at] bff.com> wrote:

>oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>
>> pooter wrote:
>> > oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>> > > Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
>> > > yet:
>> > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>> > >
>> > > JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>>
>> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
>> die that I didn't intend to die."
>>
>> So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.
>>
>> You read it again.
>>
>
>You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
>
>Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(

As written, your statement implies that ONLY two characters will die.
That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.

What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
two deaths.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291502 ] Mo, 26 Juni 2006 22:34
oj  
zoltan47 wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:07:16 +0100, pooter <a [at] bff.com> wrote:
>
> >oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> >>
> >> pooter wrote:
> >> > oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> >> > > Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
> >> > > yet:
> >> > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
> >> > >
> >> > > JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
> >>
> >> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
> >> die that I didn't intend to die."
> >>
> >> So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.
> >>
> >> You read it again.
> >>
> >
> >You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
> >
> >Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
>
> As written, your statement implies that ONLY two characters will die.
> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>
> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
> two deaths.

Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.

oj
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291529 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 01:11
DM  
oj wrote:
> pooter wrote:
>
>>oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>
>>>Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
>>>yet:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>>>
>>>JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>>>
>>
>>Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>
>
> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
> die that I didn't intend to die."

I wonder what constitutes a "character"? Theoretically, they could be
anyone mentioned in the entire series, so even a very minor character
could be victim.

If she changed the already written last chapter, I'd guess the reprieved
was a main character. The deaths could be anyone, from Stan Shunpike to
one of the Lestranges, from Crookshanks to Harry himself.

--
DM
---

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291535 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 02:01
drusilla  
oj escribió:
> zoltan47 wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:07:16 +0100, pooter <a [at] bff.com> wrote:
>>
>>> oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>>> pooter wrote:
>>>>> oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>>>>> Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
>>>>>> yet:
>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>>>> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
>>>> die that I didn't intend to die."
>>>>
>>>> So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.
>>>>
>>>> You read it again.
>>>>
>>> You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
>>>
>>> Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
>> As written, your statement implies that ONLY two characters will die.
>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>
>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>> two deaths.
>
> Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
> die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>

M;ugglenet says: "Although she still has the final chapter of Book 7
stored away in a safe, it has been altered slightly: Two more people
have kicked the can while another has gotten a reprieve"

So, she killed people when she first wrote the chapter, but now, she has
added two more deaths to it.

(She's ruthless!!!!)
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291542 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 02:23
DM  
drusilla wrote:
> oj escribió:
>
>> zoltan47 wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:07:16 +0100, pooter <a [at] bff.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>>>
>>>>> pooter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
>>>>>>> yet:
>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
>>>>> die that I didn't intend to die."
>>>>>
>>>>> So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> You read it again.
>>>>>
>>>> You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
>>>>
>>>> Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
>>>
>>> As written, your statement implies that ONLY two characters will die.
>>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>>
>>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>>> two deaths.
>>
>>
>> Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
>> die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>>
>
> M;ugglenet says: "Although she still has the final chapter of Book 7
> stored away in a safe, it has been altered slightly: Two more people
> have kicked the can while another has gotten a reprieve"
>
> So, she killed people when she first wrote the chapter, but now, she has
> added two more deaths to it.
>
> (She's ruthless!!!!)

Or, the one person getting a reprieve is no longer dead, thus requiring
her to revise the final chapter.

--
DM
---

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291543 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 02:58
spiznet  
I think she saved LV because her new 7 book series will be about how he
rules the WORLD!!!

Poor twins!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHA

DM wrote:
> oj wrote:
> > pooter wrote:
> >
> >>oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> >>
> >>>Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
> >>>yet:
> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
> >>>
> >>>JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
> >
> >
> > ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
> > die that I didn't intend to die."
>
> I wonder what constitutes a "character"? Theoretically, they could be
> anyone mentioned in the entire series, so even a very minor character
> could be victim.
>
> If she changed the already written last chapter, I'd guess the reprieved
> was a main character. The deaths could be anyone, from Stan Shunpike to
> one of the Lestranges, from Crookshanks to Harry himself.
>
> --
> DM
> ---
>
> ,_,
> (O,O)
> ( )
> -"-"-
>
> dm1498 (at) gmail.com
> ---
> "RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
> "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
> - Lord Voldemort
>
> HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
> CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
> HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
> ---
> Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291595 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 09:51
Toon  
On 26 Jun 2006 13:34:22 -0700, "oj" <orljustin [at] aol.com> wrote:

>
>zoltan47 wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:07:16 +0100, pooter <a [at] bff.com> wrote:
>>
>> >oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>> >>
>> >> pooter wrote:
>> >> > oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>> >> > > Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
>> >> > > yet:
>> >> > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>> >> > >
>> >> > > JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>> >>
>> >> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
>> >> die that I didn't intend to die."
>> >>
>> >> So, she reveals that two characters will die in Book 7.
>> >>
>> >> You read it again.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
>> >
>> >Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
>>
>> As written, your statement implies that ONLY two characters will die.
>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>
>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>> two deaths.
>
>Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
>die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>
>oj

That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
Book 7. The end."

Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291596 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 09:55
Toon  
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 23:11:50 GMT, DM <dm1498 [at] {REMOVE}gmail.com> wrote:

>oj wrote:
>> pooter wrote:
>>
>>>oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
>>>
>>>>Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
>>>>yet:
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
>>>>
>>>>JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
>>
>>
>> ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
>> die that I didn't intend to die."
>
>I wonder what constitutes a "character"? Theoretically, they could be
>anyone mentioned in the entire series, so even a very minor character
>could be victim.
>
>If she changed the already written last chapter, I'd guess the reprieved
>was a main character. The deaths could be anyone, from Stan Shunpike to
>one of the Lestranges, from Crookshanks to Harry himself.

Better not kill Crookshanks or the other animals. I nearly plotzed
thinking Fang didn't make it.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291615 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 14:34
Magic_mom  
>>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>>
>>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>>> two deaths.
>>
>>Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
>>die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>>
>>oj
>
> That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
> die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
> no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
> implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
> Book 7. The end."
>
> Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
> changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.

I think it just means two FAVORITE type characters would die; such as when
Sirius was killed off... she'd said before the book was out that *someone*
was going to die.. and again when Dumblydorr was *killed*, we also knew
someone important was going to snuff it.

M_m
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291625 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 16:11
David  
oj wrote:
> pooter wrote:
>
> > You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
> >
> > Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
>
> What the hell are you talking about? The article says:
> "The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very
> slightly," she said in an interview broadcast on Monday on Britain's
> Channel 4. "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die
> that I didn't intend to die."

Okay, now re-read that paragraph again. Yes, it says that two
characters will die that JKR wasn't originally planning to kill. But
there were deaths planned before. One of those got a reprieve. But
however many others there were, they didn't get reprieves. So perhaps
two characters will die, perhaps seven will. Perhaps twenty will. All
she did was spare one and add two to the already established (in her
own mind) list, for a net gain of one death. So if she was planning to
kill six before, she is now planning to kill seven. But everyone seems
to have locked onto this "two characters will die" theme. That's not
what it says. Clearly there will be more than two, possibly lots more.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #291630 ] Di, 27 Juni 2006 16:31
wadkin2000  
David wrote:
> oj wrote:
> > pooter wrote:
> >
> > > You believe what you posted equals what JKR said?
> > >
> > > Education today eh? Who'd have it. :-(
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about? The article says:
> > "The final chapter is hidden away, although it's now changed very
> > slightly," she said in an interview broadcast on Monday on Britain's
> > Channel 4. "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die
> > that I didn't intend to die."
>
> Okay, now re-read that paragraph again. Yes, it says that two
> characters will die that JKR wasn't originally planning to kill. But
> there were deaths planned before. One of those got a reprieve. But
> however many others there were, they didn't get reprieves. So perhaps
> two characters will die, perhaps seven will. Perhaps twenty will. All
> she did was spare one and add two to the already established (in her
> own mind) list, for a net gain of one death. So if she was planning to
> kill six before, she is now planning to kill seven. But everyone seems
> to have locked onto this "two characters will die" theme. That's not
> what it says. Clearly there will be more than two, possibly lots more.


Exactly. She had already said in the past that there were going to be
deaths in the final book and never alluded to how many. The two she
mentioned in this interview were in addition to the ones already
planned. The reprieved character was one that she originally planned to
kill. When you look around the net, it's amazing how many people have
misconstrued her statements! Talk about reading comprehension!

LOL...The bookies are going to have a field day on this one!
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #292144 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 02:00
Chip Stobb  
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:34:49 -0600, "Magic_Mom"
<nofreakinway [at] yeahright.com> wrote:

>
>>>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>>>
>>>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>>>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>>>> two deaths.
>>>
>>>Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
>>>die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>>>
>>>oj
>>
>> That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
>> die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
>> no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
>> implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
>> Book 7. The end."
>>
>> Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
>> changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.
>
>I think it just means two FAVORITE type characters would die; such as when
>Sirius was killed off... she'd said before the book was out that *someone*
>was going to die.. and again when Dumblydorr was *killed*, we also knew
>someone important was going to snuff it.
>
>M_m
>

Everyone is over-analyzing this to death. Everyone - lean back, take
a deep breath, and keep in mind the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)
Principle. Now then.... let's get back to the basics, shall we?

Simply put, a character who JKR had originally slated to die is now
going to live. Also, two characters who were originally going to
survive will now bite the big one. These two are on the side of
"good" as JKR states that people will be disappointed.

Others - on either side - could also die. I believe that it is a safe
bet to conclude that Voldemort will also be among the dead at the end
of it all. As this IS a children's book after all, good HAS to
triumph over evil in the very end. 'Tis the way of things. But
beyond that, how many die and who they will be is anyone's guess.

- Chip

"Ignorance is bliss, and we're in Nirvana." - C. Stobb
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #292209 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 09:06
Toon  
On 27 Jun 2006 07:11:26 -0700, "David" <dmclallen [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>kill six before, she is now planning to kill seven. But everyone seems
>to have locked onto this "two characters will die" theme. That's not
>what it says. Clearly there will be more than two, possibly lots more.

Actually, Pooter's the only one really locked into it. Everybody's
locked into which of all characters will eb the two. That doesn't
perclude there being others. Only in Pooter's mind is it syaing only
2 characetrs will be dying in Book 7. Everybody esle is fixated don't
he confirmation of two characters definitely dying. But that doesn't
mean more can't be killed. In fact, her very statement indicates
clearly there has to be at least a third death. Bare minimum, 3
people will die. and sicne she spare done person, that 3rd person
isn't a guaratee, and therefore we can't really speculate on them or
others. We can only speculate on the two we know for a fact die.

since we know two will definitely die, we're locked onto who they
might be. only Pooter seems to think under no circumstances can
anyone else not die.

As soon as JKR says 3 people will die by mid way of the book (for
example), we'll lock onto which 5 characters shall be dying. doesn't
mean we think ONLY 5 people will die.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #292971 ] Mi, 28 Juni 2006 23:33
pooter  
Toon [toon [at] toon.com] said
> On 27 Jun 2006 07:11:26 -0700, "David" <dmclallen [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >kill six before, she is now planning to kill seven. But everyone seems
> >to have locked onto this "two characters will die" theme. That's not
> >what it says. Clearly there will be more than two, possibly lots more.
>
> Actually, Pooter's the only one really locked into it.


> only Pooter seems to think under no circumstances can
> anyone else not die.

You are grossly missing the point.

1, 2, 100s, 1000s, good, bad, major or minor - all bollocks because what
matters is what JKR *actually* said.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #293062 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 16:27
ritansha.patni  
well actually she said that it was the main characters that kicked the
bucket...
allow me to quote...
when asked whether the characters were "much loved", she replied: "A
price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here. They don't
target extras do they? They go for the main characters. Well I do."

so im interpreting this as her saying that shes going to kill 2 main
characters...

DM wrote:
> oj wrote:
> > pooter wrote:
> >
> >>oj [orljustin [at] aol.com] said
> >>
> >>>Just saw this news bit about the seventh book and didn't see it here
> >>>yet:
> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060626/en_nm/arts_potter_plot_d c_1
> >>>
> >>>JK reveals two characters to die in Book 7.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Read it again as actually she doesn't say that at all.
> >
> >
> > ... and I quote : "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two
> > die that I didn't intend to die."
>
> I wonder what constitutes a "character"? Theoretically, they could be
> anyone mentioned in the entire series, so even a very minor character
> could be victim.
>
> If she changed the already written last chapter, I'd guess the reprieved
> was a main character. The deaths could be anyone, from Stan Shunpike to
> one of the Lestranges, from Crookshanks to Harry himself.
>
> --
> DM
> ---
>
> ,_,
> (O,O)
> ( )
> -"-"-
>
> dm1498 (at) gmail.com
> ---
> "RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
> "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
> - Lord Voldemort
>
> HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
> CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
> HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
> ---
> Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #293091 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 20:33
wadkin2000  
tom felton is so cute!!! wrote:
> well actually she said that it was the main characters that kicked the
> bucket...
> allow me to quote...
> when asked whether the characters were "much loved", she replied: "A
> price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here. They don't
> target extras do they? They go for the main characters. Well I do."
>
> so im interpreting this as her saying that shes going to kill 2 main
> characters...

A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character could
be significantly different from her readers' views, and second, I have
this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with her reply.
She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
information to add fuel to the fire.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #293093 ] Do, 29 Juni 2006 21:00
rc  
wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

> She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
> creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
> don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
> information to add fuel to the fire.

Exactly! She has been described as a very astute business woman. We
should add a genius at marketing. A year before a possible
publication, she is droping hints in a way to get us all talking about
it.

RC
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #293126 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 02:38
Taunto  
rc wrote:
> wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
>>creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
>>don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
>>information to add fuel to the fire.
>
>
> Exactly! She has been described as a very astute business woman. We
> should add a genius at marketing. A year before a possible
> publication, she is droping hints in a way to get us all talking about
> it.
>

She's writing a book about the Segway???? I bet its a horcrux.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #293162 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 09:53
Toon  
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:38:55 -0700, Taunto <nope [at] notme.com> wrote:

>rc wrote:
>> wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
>>>creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
>>>don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
>>>information to add fuel to the fire.
>>
>>
>> Exactly! She has been described as a very astute business woman. We
>> should add a genius at marketing. A year before a possible
>> publication, she is droping hints in a way to get us all talking about
>> it.
>>
>
>She's writing a book about the Segway???? I bet its a horcrux.


No, no. DD transfigured himself into one, and it'll be like My Mother,
The Car.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #294987 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 13:38
richard e white  
pooter wrote:

> Toon [toon [at] toon.com] said
> > On 27 Jun 2006 07:11:26 -0700, "David" <dmclallen [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >kill six before, she is now planning to kill seven. But everyone seems
> > >to have locked onto this "two characters will die" theme. That's not
> > >what it says. Clearly there will be more than two, possibly lots more.
> >
> > Actually, Pooter's the only one really locked into it.
>
> > only Pooter seems to think under no circumstances can
> > anyone else not die.
>
> You are grossly missing the point.
>
> 1, 2, 100s, 1000s, good, bad, major or minor - all bollocks because what
> matters is what JKR *actually* said.



Can some one send me the interview? or isn't it on line yet?

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #294988 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 13:51
richard e white  
Magic_Mom wrote:

> >>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
> >>>
> >>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
> >>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
> >>> two deaths.
> >>
> >>Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
> >>die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
> >>
> >>oj
> >
> > That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
> > die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
> > no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
> > implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
> > Book 7. The end."
> >
> > Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
> > changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.
>
> I think it just means two FAVORITE type characters would die;

What tells you that? I heard that a popular character will die and I have
heard that characters will die. But did JKR say that popular characters will
die? or is that just the news people trying to hipe what she said?



> such as when
> Sirius was killed off... she'd said before the book was out that *someone*
> was going to die.. and again when Dumblydorr was *killed*, we also knew
> someone important was going to snuff it.
>
> M_m




--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #294989 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 14:17
DM  
richard e white wrote:
> Magic_Mom wrote:
>
>
>>>>>That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>>>>>that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>>>>>two deaths.
>>>>
>>>>Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
>>>>die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>>>>
>>>>oj
>>>
>>>That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
>>>die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
>>>no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
>>>implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
>>>Book 7. The end."
>>>
>>>Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
>>>changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.
>>
>>I think it just means two FAVORITE type characters would die;
>
>
> What tells you that? I heard that a popular character will die and I have
> heard that characters will die. But did JKR say that popular characters will
> die? or is that just the news people trying to hipe what she said?

She is quoted as saying: "A price has to be paid, we are dealing with
pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main
characters. Well I do."

--
DM
---

,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-

dm1498 (at) gmail.com
---
"RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
"I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
- Lord Voldemort

HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
---
Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville
For Richard E [message #295001 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 21:25
Magic_mom  
Richard here is the link to the transcript if this helps any. It's posted on
Mugglenet. If you want a clean copy of it, I will copy and paste it into an
email for you.

http://www.mugglenet.com/mnnews/06262006/transcriptrandjudy. shtml


If you want the link to the video I can get that too if you would like to
just listen to it instead.


M_m
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #295009 ] So, 02 Juli 2006 01:56
drusilla  
richard e white escribió:
> Magic_Mom wrote:
>
>>>>> That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
>>>>> that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
>>>>> two deaths.
>>>> Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
>>>> die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
>>>>
>>>> oj
>>> That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
>>> die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
>>> no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
>>> implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
>>> Book 7. The end."
>>>
>>> Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
>>> changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.
>> I think it just means two FAVORITE type characters would die;
>
> What tells you that? I heard that a popular character will die and I have
> heard that characters will die. But did JKR say that popular characters will
> die? or is that just the news people trying to hipe what she said?

She was asked about who many changes have been done to the final chapter
she has suposedly already written. She said that she will be killing two
more than she had planned, and one got a reprieve:

"The last... the final chapter is hidden away although it's .. umm, it's
now changed very slightly. (Has it?) Umm, yeah. One character got a
reprieve (Oh really?) I have to say two die that I didn't intend (Oh) so
I... (Too much loved ones) ...well, you know, the price has to be paid -
we are dealing with pure evil so... they don't target the extras do
they? They go for the main characters."

Note she said bad guys will be killing main characters, not that the two
new ones were main. So, main characters will die, big shock!
Re: The HP Death Pool in now open! [message #297749 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 13:14
Blon Fel Fotch Passam  
Cassie Wadkin wrote:

> A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
> mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character could
> be significantly different from her readers' views, and second, I have
> this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with her reply.
> She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
> creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
> don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
> information to add fuel to the fire.

Cassie, for ages I have been warning people not to trust her interviews.

And now it's been pointed out that Rowling was deflecting Judy from her
question when she made her controversial, yet so unrevealing remarks.


Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen

--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Re: The HP Death Pool in now open! [message #297760 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 16:57
wadkin2000  
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
> Cassie Wadkin wrote:
>
> > A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
> > mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character could
> > be significantly different from her readers' views, and second, I have
> > this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with her reply.
> > She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
> > creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
> > don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
> > information to add fuel to the fire.
>
> Cassie, for ages I have been warning people not to trust her interviews.
>
> And now it's been pointed out that Rowling was deflecting Judy from her
> question when she made her controversial, yet so unrevealing remarks.
>
>
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
>
> --
> Free Margaret Blaine now!


Most definitely! Jo doesn't need a p.r. firm to handle her publicity.
She's a master at "stirring the cauldron" herself!

Cassie
Re: The HP Death Pool in now open! [message #297768 ] Sa, 08 Juli 2006 20:34
Angrie.Woman  
wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:
>> Cassie Wadkin wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
>>> mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character could
>>> be significantly different from her readers' views, and second, I have
>>> this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with her reply.
>>> She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
>>> creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
>>> don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
>>> information to add fuel to the fire.
>> Cassie, for ages I have been warning people not to trust her interviews.
>>
>> And now it's been pointed out that Rowling was deflecting Judy from her
>> question when she made her controversial, yet so unrevealing remarks.
>>
>>
>> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
>>
>> --
>> Free Margaret Blaine now!
>
>
> Most definitely! Jo doesn't need a p.r. firm to handle her publicity.
> She's a master at "stirring the cauldron" herself!
>
But I don't think that means we should discount what she says. Half of
the fun between books is based on trying to figure what she might be
saying, or what she might be avoiding.

It's no wonder she doesn't do many interviews. Can you imagine trying
to continually be so clever and elusive? It wears me out just thinking
about it.
Re: The HP Death Pool in now open! [message #300140 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 01:46
Blon Fel Fotch Passam  
Cassie Wadkin wrote:

> Blon wrote:

>>> A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
>>> mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character
>>> could be significantly different from her readers' views, and second,
>>> I have this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with
>>> her reply. She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion
>>> that a) only creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and
>>> half-truths that don't necessarily answer the question directly, but
>>> provide just enough information to add fuel to the fire.

>> Cassie, for ages I have been warning people not to trust her interviews.

>> And now it's been pointed out that Rowling was deflecting Judy from her
>> question when she made her controversial, yet so unrevealing remarks.

> Most definitely! Jo doesn't need a p.r. firm to handle her publicity.
> She's a master at "stirring the cauldron" herself!

That's right Cassie, while failing to notice the flames beneath.


Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen

--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Re: For Richard E [message #300170 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 06:27
richard e white  
Magic_Mom wrote:

> Richard here is the link to the transcript if this helps any. It's posted on
> Mugglenet. If you want a clean copy of it, I will copy and paste it into an
> email for you.
>
> http://www.mugglenet.com/mnnews/06262006/transcriptrandjudy. shtml
>
> If you want the link to the video I can get that too if you would like to
> just listen to it instead.
>
> M_m

I would like a clean copy if you can. I can't use links or sights at the
moment. The screen reader dosent work right there yet. I am stuck to e-mail
and news groups until they fix the bug in the program.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: Book 7 Deaths Spoiler [message #300172 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 06:33
richard e white  
DM wrote:

> richard e white wrote:
> > Magic_Mom wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>That may not have been your intent, but that is what you wrote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What she said was two that were going to live will now die and one
> >>>>>that was going to die will live. Odds are that there will be more than
> >>>>>two deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>>Forgive me. I thought it was _implied_ 'at least' two characters would
> >>>>die, not 'exactly' two characters would die.
> >>>>
> >>>>oj
> >>>
> >>>That's what I got out of it. JKR reveals two characters are going to
> >>>die. Nowhere does that say only 2 characters are going to die. Under
> >>>no circumstances can 3 or more characters end up dead. Nothign even
> >>>implies, "I, JK Rowling, am only going to kill off two characters in
> >>>Book 7. The end."
> >>>
> >>>Especially since the books are not even finished yet, and already 3
> >>>changes have occurred. 2 new deaths, one non death.
> >>
> >>I think it just means two FAVORITE type characters would die;
> >
> >
> > What tells you that? I heard that a popular character will die and I have
> > heard that characters will die. But did JKR say that popular characters will
> > die? or is that just the news people trying to hipe what she said?
>
> She is quoted as saying: "A price has to be paid, we are dealing with
> pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main
> characters. Well I do."
>
> --
> DM
> ---
>
> ,_,
> (O,O)
> ( )
> -"-"-
>
> dm1498 (at) gmail.com
> ---
> "RUN, SCABBERS, RUN!" - Jenny Lestrange
> "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
> - Lord Voldemort
>
> HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+HBP+++FF= QA
> CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
> HP/Gi-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
> ---
> Anti-Hacking Protection provided by Saint Isidore of Seville

That sounds to me like she didn't want to say who gets it. more suspense that
way. It also keeps people talking about the whole matter. So it is people
guessing that a popular or main character.
As for me I expect her to pop off the people she thinks she needs to.
I saw Black death comeing. It was easy as he upset the format she had set up. But
now she left the format she had at the end of six and as she plans for book seven
to be the end no one is really safe. It all depends on what kind of story she
wants. There are so many ways she could go.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: The HP Death Pool in now open! [message #300173 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 06:39
richard e white  
Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:

> Cassie Wadkin wrote:
>
> > A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
> > mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character could
> > be significantly different from her readers' views, and second, I have
> > this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with her reply.
> > She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion that a) only
> > creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and half-truths that
> > don't necessarily answer the question directly, but provide just enough
> > information to add fuel to the fire.
>
> Cassie, for ages I have been warning people not to trust her interviews.
>
> And now it's been pointed out that Rowling was deflecting Judy from her
> question when she made her controversial, yet so unrevealing remarks.
>
> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen
>
> --
> Free Margaret Blaine now!

I do know what you mean. The problem is that she often ansers something
close to what was asked rather then what was asked. Oddly I have had odd
thoughts about how she ansers. In her interviews it is best to remember that
most coments can be taken in more then one way. And always watch for a
writer that goes into a big coment that is close to what is asked and then
changes the drift of the anser. you never know when they switched the thing
they where talking about. I find it odd that so many people doing the
interviews never ask for clarification of the ansers they where given.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
Re: For Richard E [message #300198 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 16:39
Magic_mom  
"richard e white" <chiphead [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:44B71D4E.5816E994 [at] cox.net...
> Magic_Mom wrote:
>
>> Richard here is the link to the transcript if this helps any. It's posted
>> on
>> Mugglenet. If you want a clean copy of it, I will copy and paste it into
>> an
>> email for you.
>>
>> http://www.mugglenet.com/mnnews/06262006/transcriptrandjudy. shtml
>>
>> If you want the link to the video I can get that too if you would like to
>> just listen to it instead.
>>
>> M_m
>
> I would like a clean copy if you can. I can't use links or sights at the
> moment. The screen reader dosent work right there yet. I am stuck to
> e-mail
> and news groups until they fix the bug in the program.
>
>
> --
> Richard The Blind Typer
> Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
>
>

OK I emailed it to you. I hope it comes out ok.

M_m
Re: The HP Death Pool in now open! [message #300257 ] Sa, 15 Juli 2006 19:58
Blon Fel Fotch Passam  
Richard E White wrote:

> Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen wrote:

>> Cassie Wadkin wrote:

>>> A couple of things struck me as I read the interview. First (and I've
>>> mentioned this before), JK's interpretation of a "main" character
>>> could be significantly different from her readers' views, and second,
>>> I have this strange feeling that she sort of hedged and wormed with
>>> her reply. She has this odd way of answering questions on occasion
>>> that a) only creates more questions and b) flirts with truths and
>>> half-truths that don't necessarily answer the question directly, but
>>> provide just enough information to add fuel to the fire.

>> Cassie, for ages I have been warning people not to trust her interviews.

>> And now it's been pointed out that Rowling was deflecting Judy from her
>> question when she made her controversial, yet so unrevealing remarks.

> I do know what you mean. The problem is that she often ansers something
> close to what was asked rather then what was asked. Oddly I have had odd
> thoughts about how she ansers. In her interviews it is best to remember
> that most coments can be taken in more then one way. And always watch
> for a writer that goes into a big coment that is close to what is asked
> and then changes the drift of the anser. you never know when they
> switched the thing they where talking about. I find it odd that so many
> people doing the interviews never ask for clarification of the ansers
> they where given.

I know! It didn't even happen when Jeremy Paxman interviewed her!


Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen

--
Free Margaret Blaine now!
Vorheriges Thema:Legilimency vs. Occlumency
Nächstes Thema:Book 7 traitor theory
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:56:14 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,12786 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered