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 » Harry Potter must die
Harry Potter must die [message #295022] So, 02 Juli 2006 17:02
eggplant107  
In the Guardian newspaper a few days ago two columnists agreed that
Harry should die, I think they're right too except for the part that
fans would not like to find out that Ginny was pregnant with Harry's
child.
===============

Harry Potter must die
Phil Maynard
June 27, 2006 04:13 PM

Ever since young lips were set a-wobbling by the demise of Dumbledore
in HP6 (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) it seemed likely that
the mighty author's pen would strike further blows in the seventh and
clinching episode (expected next year).

And so it seems: JK Rowling has let slip that the final chapter of the
saga contains the deaths of more than one major character, stoking
rumours that Potter himself may be bumped off.

The rumours alone of Potter's demise, whether or not exaggerated, will
be enough to bring the issue of mortality firmly on to the breakfast
table where it will further loom over many a school run in the coming
weeks and hype-filled months.

Children have to learn to deal with death sooner or later, it's the
reason they have hamsters for pets. Or so it was once explained to me
one tearful morning when Hammy wasn't on his wheel.

By fronting up to the fact that heroic Harry has gone for good, so the
theory goes, children will be able to understand important lessons
about life and the consequences of their own actions. They will see
bravery in its true context and see that nothing good (or bad) ever
lasts forever.

But before you go raking your Beatrix Potter and Mr Men volumes off the
nursery shelves and loading up on late-era Philip Roth it's worth
remembering that deaths in literature aren't always what they seem.

When Sherlock Holmes went over the waterfall with his arch-nemesis
Moriarty in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the literary world shared
Watson's elementary deduction that Holmes was dead. Arthur Conan
Doyle's publishers had other ideas though, and he pops up again with
barely a scratch in The Return of Sherlock Holmes.

So, for the sake of the children, let's just hope that even in the
magical world of Harry Potter, dead really does means dead.
==============

Harry Potter and the death foretold
Ros Taylor
June 28, 2006 04:28 PM

Kill off Harry Potter. My colleague Phil Maynard is right. It pains me
to say so, because - like most Harry Potter fans - the prospect of a
sequel has consoled me during the gloomy post-Potter withdrawal period.
But next time will be different. JK Rowling says the seventh Potter
novel will be the last, and that two of the main characters will die.
One of them ought to be her hero.

Potter's death would not just offer Rowling a big literary challenge. A
death scene subtle and yet powerful enough to be appreciated by her
younger readers would be a genuinely impressive achievement. It would
not necessarily ensure, as she hopes, that her hero couldn't be
resurrected by another author, though I cannot think of a writer who
has pulled off that trick successfully. (Arthur Conan Doyle only
managed it because he was bringing his own creation back to life.) No,
the best reason to kill off Potter is because Rowling needs to take her
readers somewhere they are genuinely afraid to go - a world where magic
and school no longer offer any protection against danger and evil. In
the Potter universe, immortality is not something to be coveted. It is
a fearful thing that Voldemort covets and that Harry must not allow him
to achieve. Voldemort tries to hide bits of his soul in inanimate
objects and animals; Harry knows you can't do that.

It will be tough. Some libraries will refuse to lend the book to
children under 12. Christian fundamentalists in the States, some of
whom already boycott the Potter series on the grounds of its occultish
content, will draw unfavourable comparisons with the redemption offered
by CS Lewis's Narnia stories. There has always been a way out for
Harry. Magic offers limitless ways for him to defeat his enemies. When
the conjuror's hat finally runs out of silk scarves, when Houdini
doesn't escape from the tank, there will be shock and hurt.

Rowling may be tempted to suggest that something of Harry stays behind.
That would be consoling, but fraught with difficulties. Killing off
something nasty and hinting that it might come back can be chilling:
Albert Camus did it very well at the end of La Peste when he described
how the plague bacillus can lie dormant for years. Leaving behind a bit
of Harry will be more difficult. Rowling might hint at the possibility
that his girlfriend Ginny is pregnant, for example, but her younger
readers won't like that much (and nor will some of the parents). Doctor
Who's scriptwriters recently tried to pull off a similar compromise
after a young woman was swallowed whole by keeping her face alive in a
paving stone. It was strange and rather repellent, particularly when
her boyfriend referred coyly to their "love life" ("Let's not talk
about that," snapped the paving stone. Let's not, indeed).

Will Rowling be brave enough to kill the character she loves? Let's
hope so: by doing so, she would break one of the last taboos of
children's literature and open up a Pandora's box of fear and wonder
for her readers. It's an awful thought; I can't wait.
Re: Harry Potter must die [message #295036 ] So, 02 Juli 2006 20:57
BaJoRi  
"eggplant" <eggplant107 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151852579.054845.168100 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> In the Guardian newspaper a few days ago two columnists agreed that
> Harry should die, I think they're right too except for the part that
> fans would not like to find out that Ginny was pregnant with Harry's
> child.
> ===============
>
> Harry Potter must die
> Phil Maynard
> June 27, 2006 04:13 PM
>

> Children have to learn to deal with death sooner or later, it's the
> reason they have hamsters for pets. Or so it was once explained to me
> one tearful morning when Hammy wasn't on his wheel.
>

<snip the other stuff>

Yes. Explain death to your child carefully. That way, when you threaten them
with it, it is much more effective.
Re: Harry Potter must die [message #295066 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 07:01
Toon  
On 2 Jul 2006 08:02:59 -0700, "eggplant" <eggplant107 [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:


>in HP6 (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) it seemed likely that
>the mighty author's pen would strike further blows in the seventh and
>clinching episode (expected next year).

Likely? She said it flat out before Book 6.

>And so it seems: JK Rowling has let slip that the final chapter of the
>saga contains the deaths of more than one major character, stoking
>rumours that Potter himself may be bumped off.

Let slip? Again, she flat out announced it.
>

>Children have to learn to deal with death sooner or later, it's the
>reason they have hamsters for pets. Or so it was once explained to me
>one tearful morning when Hammy wasn't on his wheel.

That is just plain sick. What heartless parent tells a kid their pet
was given so it'd die and they can experience the pains and agony of
death?
Re: Harry Potter must die [message #295077 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 09:38
Hoshisato  
eggplant wrote:
> In the Guardian newspaper a few days ago two columnists agreed that
> Harry should die, I think they're right too except for the part that
> fans would not like to find out that Ginny was pregnant with Harry's
> child.
> ===============
>
> Harry Potter must die
> Phil Maynard
> June 27, 2006 04:13 PM
>
> Ever since young lips were set a-wobbling by the demise of Dumbledore
> in HP6 (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) it seemed likely that
> the mighty author's pen would strike further blows in the seventh and
> clinching episode (expected next year).
>
> And so it seems: JK Rowling has let slip that the final chapter of the
> saga contains the deaths of more than one major character, stoking
> rumours that Potter himself may be bumped off.
>
> The rumours alone of Potter's demise, whether or not exaggerated, will
> be enough to bring the issue of mortality firmly on to the breakfast
> table where it will further loom over many a school run in the coming
> weeks and hype-filled months.
>
> Children have to learn to deal with death sooner or later, it's the
> reason they have hamsters for pets. Or so it was once explained to me
> one tearful morning when Hammy wasn't on his wheel.
>
> By fronting up to the fact that heroic Harry has gone for good, so the
> theory goes, children will be able to understand important lessons
> about life and the consequences of their own actions. They will see
> bravery in its true context and see that nothing good (or bad) ever
> lasts forever.
>
> But before you go raking your Beatrix Potter and Mr Men volumes off the
> nursery shelves and loading up on late-era Philip Roth it's worth
> remembering that deaths in literature aren't always what they seem.
>
> When Sherlock Holmes went over the waterfall with his arch-nemesis
> Moriarty in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the literary world shared
> Watson's elementary deduction that Holmes was dead. Arthur Conan
> Doyle's publishers had other ideas though, and he pops up again with
> barely a scratch in The Return of Sherlock Holmes.
>
> So, for the sake of the children, let's just hope that even in the
> magical world of Harry Potter, dead really does means dead.
> ==============
>
> Harry Potter and the death foretold
> Ros Taylor
> June 28, 2006 04:28 PM
>
> Kill off Harry Potter. My colleague Phil Maynard is right. It pains me
> to say so, because - like most Harry Potter fans - the prospect of a
> sequel has consoled me during the gloomy post-Potter withdrawal period.
> But next time will be different. JK Rowling says the seventh Potter
> novel will be the last, and that two of the main characters will die.
> One of them ought to be her hero.
>
> Potter's death would not just offer Rowling a big literary challenge. A
> death scene subtle and yet powerful enough to be appreciated by her
> younger readers would be a genuinely impressive achievement. It would
> not necessarily ensure, as she hopes, that her hero couldn't be
> resurrected by another author, though I cannot think of a writer who
> has pulled off that trick successfully. (Arthur Conan Doyle only
> managed it because he was bringing his own creation back to life.) No,
> the best reason to kill off Potter is because Rowling needs to take her
> readers somewhere they are genuinely afraid to go - a world where magic
> and school no longer offer any protection against danger and evil. In
> the Potter universe, immortality is not something to be coveted. It is
> a fearful thing that Voldemort covets and that Harry must not allow him
> to achieve. Voldemort tries to hide bits of his soul in inanimate
> objects and animals; Harry knows you can't do that.
>
> It will be tough. Some libraries will refuse to lend the book to
> children under 12. Christian fundamentalists in the States, some of
> whom already boycott the Potter series on the grounds of its occultish
> content, will draw unfavourable comparisons with the redemption offered
> by CS Lewis's Narnia stories. There has always been a way out for
> Harry. Magic offers limitless ways for him to defeat his enemies. When
> the conjuror's hat finally runs out of silk scarves, when Houdini
> doesn't escape from the tank, there will be shock and hurt.
>
> Rowling may be tempted to suggest that something of Harry stays behind.
> That would be consoling, but fraught with difficulties. Killing off
> something nasty and hinting that it might come back can be chilling:
> Albert Camus did it very well at the end of La Peste when he described
> how the plague bacillus can lie dormant for years. Leaving behind a bit
> of Harry will be more difficult. Rowling might hint at the possibility
> that his girlfriend Ginny is pregnant, for example, but her younger
> readers won't like that much (and nor will some of the parents). Doctor
> Who's scriptwriters recently tried to pull off a similar compromise
> after a young woman was swallowed whole by keeping her face alive in a
> paving stone. It was strange and rather repellent, particularly when
> her boyfriend referred coyly to their "love life" ("Let's not talk
> about that," snapped the paving stone. Let's not, indeed).
>
> Will Rowling be brave enough to kill the character she loves? Let's
> hope so: by doing so, she would break one of the last taboos of
> children's literature and open up a Pandora's box of fear and wonder
> for her readers. It's an awful thought; I can't wait.

Of course Harry will die; and after three days he will rise again :-)
Now that will create some book burnings ^_^;;
Re: Harry Potter must die [message #295131 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 23:23
pooter  
Toon [toon [at] toon.com] said
> On 2 Jul 2006 08:02:59 -0700, "eggplant" <eggplant107 [at] hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >in HP6 (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) it seemed likely that
> >the mighty author's pen would strike further blows in the seventh and
> >clinching episode (expected next year).
>
> Likely? She said it flat out before Book 6.
>
> >And so it seems: JK Rowling has let slip that the final chapter of the
> >saga contains the deaths of more than one major character, stoking
> >rumours that Potter himself may be bumped off.
>
> Let slip? Again, she flat out announced it.
> >
>
> >Children have to learn to deal with death sooner or later, it's the
> >reason they have hamsters for pets. Or so it was once explained to me
> >one tearful morning when Hammy wasn't on his wheel.
>
> That is just plain sick. What heartless parent tells a kid their pet
> was given so it'd die and they can experience the pains and agony of
> death?
>

Why? If you decide to give a child a short lived pet then you know by
that act that, as the child's parent, you will be subjecting it to the
experience of death.
Re: Harry Potter must die [message #295135 ] Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:01
Thomas Madura  
Hoshisato wrote:

> eggplant wrote:
>
>>In the Guardian newspaper a few days ago two columnists agreed that
>>Harry should die, I think they're right too except for the part that
>>fans would not like to find out that Ginny was pregnant with Harry's
>>child.
>>===============
>>
>>Harry Potter must die
>>Phil Maynard
>>June 27, 2006 04:13 PM
>>
>>Ever since young lips were set a-wobbling by the demise of Dumbledore
>>in HP6 (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) it seemed likely that
>>the mighty author's pen would strike further blows in the seventh and
>>clinching episode (expected next year).
>>
>>And so it seems: JK Rowling has let slip that the final chapter of the
>>saga contains the deaths of more than one major character, stoking
>>rumours that Potter himself may be bumped off.
>>
>>The rumours alone of Potter's demise, whether or not exaggerated, will
>>be enough to bring the issue of mortality firmly on to the breakfast
>>table where it will further loom over many a school run in the coming
>>weeks and hype-filled months.
>>
>>Children have to learn to deal with death sooner or later, it's the
>>reason they have hamsters for pets. Or so it was once explained to me
>>one tearful morning when Hammy wasn't on his wheel.
>>
>>By fronting up to the fact that heroic Harry has gone for good, so the
>>theory goes, children will be able to understand important lessons
>>about life and the consequences of their own actions. They will see
>>bravery in its true context and see that nothing good (or bad) ever
>>lasts forever.
>>
>>But before you go raking your Beatrix Potter and Mr Men volumes off the
>>nursery shelves and loading up on late-era Philip Roth it's worth
>>remembering that deaths in literature aren't always what they seem.
>>
>>When Sherlock Holmes went over the waterfall with his arch-nemesis
>>Moriarty in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the literary world shared
>>Watson's elementary deduction that Holmes was dead. Arthur Conan
>>Doyle's publishers had other ideas though, and he pops up again with
>>barely a scratch in The Return of Sherlock Holmes.
>>
>>So, for the sake of the children, let's just hope that even in the
>>magical world of Harry Potter, dead really does means dead.
>>==============
>>
>>Harry Potter and the death foretold
>>Ros Taylor
>>June 28, 2006 04:28 PM
>>
>>Kill off Harry Potter. My colleague Phil Maynard is right. It pains me
>>to say so, because - like most Harry Potter fans - the prospect of a
>>sequel has consoled me during the gloomy post-Potter withdrawal period.
>>But next time will be different. JK Rowling says the seventh Potter
>>novel will be the last, and that two of the main characters will die.
>>One of them ought to be her hero.
>>
>>Potter's death would not just offer Rowling a big literary challenge. A
>>death scene subtle and yet powerful enough to be appreciated by her
>>younger readers would be a genuinely impressive achievement. It would
>>not necessarily ensure, as she hopes, that her hero couldn't be
>>resurrected by another author, though I cannot think of a writer who
>>has pulled off that trick successfully. (Arthur Conan Doyle only
>>managed it because he was bringing his own creation back to life.) No,
>>the best reason to kill off Potter is because Rowling needs to take her
>>readers somewhere they are genuinely afraid to go - a world where magic
>>and school no longer offer any protection against danger and evil. In
>>the Potter universe, immortality is not something to be coveted. It is
>>a fearful thing that Voldemort covets and that Harry must not allow him
>>to achieve. Voldemort tries to hide bits of his soul in inanimate
>>objects and animals; Harry knows you can't do that.
>>
>>It will be tough. Some libraries will refuse to lend the book to
>>children under 12. Christian fundamentalists in the States, some of
>>whom already boycott the Potter series on the grounds of its occultish
>>content, will draw unfavourable comparisons with the redemption offered
>>by CS Lewis's Narnia stories. There has always been a way out for
>>Harry. Magic offers limitless ways for him to defeat his enemies. When
>>the conjuror's hat finally runs out of silk scarves, when Houdini
>>doesn't escape from the tank, there will be shock and hurt.
>>
>>Rowling may be tempted to suggest that something of Harry stays behind.
>>That would be consoling, but fraught with difficulties. Killing off
>>something nasty and hinting that it might come back can be chilling:
>>Albert Camus did it very well at the end of La Peste when he described
>>how the plague bacillus can lie dormant for years. Leaving behind a bit
>>of Harry will be more difficult. Rowling might hint at the possibility
>>that his girlfriend Ginny is pregnant, for example, but her younger
>>readers won't like that much (and nor will some of the parents). Doctor
>>Who's scriptwriters recently tried to pull off a similar compromise
>>after a young woman was swallowed whole by keeping her face alive in a
>>paving stone. It was strange and rather repellent, particularly when
>>her boyfriend referred coyly to their "love life" ("Let's not talk
>>about that," snapped the paving stone. Let's not, indeed).
>>
>>Will Rowling be brave enough to kill the character she loves? Let's
>>hope so: by doing so, she would break one of the last taboos of
>>children's literature and open up a Pandora's box of fear and wonder
>>for her readers. It's an awful thought; I can't wait.
>
>
> Of course Harry will die; and after three days he will rise again :-)
> Now that will create some book burnings ^_^;;
>

Harry will not die in the fight to Vanquish Riddle (I will leave it open
that JKR might let him day after a long life in an Epilogue - I have
always felt she would do that).

Just the fact that she brought the subject up means that she will not
"kill" him in the struggle. SHe would have refused to answer such a
question if she was really going to do that. (SHe has this way of
avoiding such questions)
Vorheriges Thema:Proving Harry's innocence?
Nächstes Thema:What make of camera did Colin use in the movie?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:12:51 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03495 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered