Harry Potter: Do you think Rowling killed too many characters?

I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, the copious number of characters killed off in Deathly Hallows is my only real criticism of the book. As you and others have already cited, the deaths in earlier volumes were necessary in advancing the story. Significant characters were dying off on a one-per-book basis (Cedric Diggory in Goblet of Fire, Sirius Black in Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore in Half-Blood Prince) and the reader was thus given time to mourn the losses. Then Deathly Hallows comes out and all hell breaks loose.

If the death of Hedwig was pointless (it was), the death of Dobby was just mindlessly cruel. I agree with MCR that Rowling crossed the line here but it’s less because we lost Dobby as the manner in which he was killed. His death was obviously heroic and in that sense it was befitting of Harry’s loyal servant. But did it have to be the vile Bellatrix Lestrange doing the evil deed (again)? She’d already earned our collective hatred and contempt by killing Sirius. And did it have to be a fluky knife throw just as Dobby was escaping with the rest of the party he single-handedly rescued from the Malfoy house? I mean, what were the odds? No, sorry, that’s an appalling way to kill off such a courageous little character.

I have the same problem with Snape’s death. It was obvious he was doomed but did he really have to be dispatched by freaking Nagini? Rowling takes what is in many respects her best and certainly most complex character and has him bleed out on the floor like a stuck pig. I’d have far rather seen him die in a death match with Voldemort. Almost any fate would have been better than the one suffered by Snape.

By the time we get to the Battle of Hogwarts, Rowling has officially entered into the realm of the gratuitous. It’s not just the numbers involved (more than 50 are killed) or even the prominence (Fred Weasley, Lupin and Tonks) of some of the victims of Rowling’s final carnage. No, it’s the cold, almost statistical, reading of the list of the dead. The deaths are like afterthoughts with little or no detail provided. Was it really necessary to kill both Lupin AND Tonks? They left behind an orphaned child, for f***’s sake. Oh, and don’t forget, she even decided to have little Colin Creevey counted among the slaughtered. Nice touch, J.K.

I’ll close with this. Of course as the author of one of the best and most successful series of books in literary history, J.K. Rowling had the right to conclude her epic however she pleased. But by drenching the final book in so much blood and killing off so many characters so needlessly, I think she ended up diminishing their significance. The deaths come so quickly and relentlessly as to make it impossible to do the fallen any degree of justice. Given that those characters are all creations of Rowling, I’d have thought she’d have cared enough about them to ensure the reader did too.

Harry Potter Character Deaths

Well, since it was a war, I expected people to die. At first I was really bothered because like 6 major characters kicked the bucket in Deathly Hallows! I was most bothered by Sirius and Snape's deaths. Yeah, I agree with you about that...I didn't have time to feel that sad for Tonks and Lupin because that took place in a chapter where everyone was dying left and right. I wasn't as depressed as when Sirius died.

But, honestly, there's worse characters she could have killed off. I would have actually been ANGRY at the book if she'd made people like Luna, Hagrid, Arthur Weasley, or Draco kick it. Some characters I just can't handle.

I agree with you 50%.

The death that really upset me was Merope Guant. That was even sadder than Fred's death. Man, I was sad for a week after reading that.

@Crystal: What? You were happy Voldemort died? I didn't want him to die. He had a tough life, you know. His own pet snake was beheaded in front of his eyes and he's been picked on by Harry for all those years. Poor guy.

I agree. Too many people died in those books. Quarrell, Cedric, Sirius, Lupin ,Tonks, Fred, Dumbledore, Voldemort(but that was a good thing), Bellatrix, Hedwig, Mad-Eye Moody, Dobby, Peter Pettigrew, Harry's Parents(Lily and James), Snape, Moaning Murtle, Crabe or Goyle(I don't remember which one died), Bathilda Bagshot, etc. but it is her book series, so she can do what ever she wants to. Besides..at least she didn't kill off any of the main characters like: Ron, Hermione, or Harry.

Well I have to disagree with you. And I'll break it down for you.

Philosopher's Stone:

Quirrl dies because he has part of Voldemort inside him. So he must die

Chanber of Secrets: after reading the book, no body dies.

So does in Prisoner of Azkaban.

Goblet of Fire: Cedric dies to show Vodlemorts return. To show what he can really do. What he was capable of.

Order of the Phonix: Siruis died to show the lost of a love one. To show dispare and loneliness to Harry.

Half- Blood Prince: Dumbledore dies to shows the lost of a father figure.

Now for Deathly Hallows:

Hegwig died to show the lost of inoccents and childhood. That Harry is now Grown up.

Tonks and Lupin, they died to show the orphans of war. To show that children are left without parents because of war.

Dobby deaths shoes the sacrifice of freedom and friendship.

The books circle around the theme to death and death is in wars and in our lives. So that's why I disagree with you.

Sorry

Harry Potter is her story; she can do whatever she likes with it. Some sequels have left a bad taste in my mouth but Harry Potter didn't. I wasn't glad that Lupin, Tonks, Fred, Hedwig, Mad Eye, and all the others died, but it didn't feel incredibly wrong. The Deathly Hallows is about a war and in a war people die. There aren't rules as to how many people die in a chapter, just as there aren't rules as to how long a chapter is. I know what you mean--one stops liking the book when the author starts killing characters left and right--but I think J. K. Rowling wrote her story well.

I think the other deaths like Dumbledore's were the most effective.

Whilst she did bring the death toll up massively in the final book, this signified the magnitude of the danger of the Battle of Hogwarts. It was a war, and it was essential that 'good and brave' witches and wizards did fall, characters the reader was attached to, to emphasis the morose nature of the conflict between good and evil.

Almost all the deaths in the final book were written to evoke emotions within the reader, and I think overall she succeeded. Snape's death for example, was fundamental in the revelation about his character and other plot elements of the series.

I was personally quite cut-up about Hedwig's death. The number of deaths gave me a feeling of the trio being more alone in the world than ever, the fragility of their lives and the vast challenge ahead of them. :)

Well i certainly hated all of those deaths..i didn't want any to die....but they all we essential.

But it was a war. You should expect a lot of deaths. And if it wasn't for Hedwig, that spell may have hit Harry. You never know.

It was a good book though. They all died as hero's, in a way. I don't think too many people died. Just too many of my favorite characters died.

But it was all essential to the story....if it wasn't, why would she mention the characters at all??

In each story leading up to the seventh, there was a "main" death per book--notably starting at Goblet of Fire, with Cedric Diggory, Sirius, and finally Dumbledore. Then Deathly Hallows practically splattered blood all over the place. I do think Rowling is guilty of overusing death for shock--each book rose in the impact of the death, and you couldn't get higher than Dumbledore so she went for more.

She did kill off quite a lot of people but I think most of it was necessary. Fred's death however, I would never forgive JK for ... ='( ... I cried for days and days after that... thinking how horrible George would have felt... Huhh... For me it was the most emotional death *Cries*

Hedwig's death was explained by JK rowling. She said that Hedwig represented Harry's innocence, his childhood, as for Harry Hedwig was a cuddly toy that kept him company.

By Killing Hedwig, the author was trying to demonstrate that Harry's childhood has officially left him, that the real danger and adulthood lies before him and that he can't escape to his former child life.

As for Fred's death. JK had always known that one of the Weasley's would die fighting the war. She always expected it to be Arthur Weasley, but then she thought that Harry has always had most of the men who he considered as Father Figures etc died. So she decided to switch Arthur's life for Fred's. For which I will always be angry at her .. =( ...

And lastly. The end of the series needed a lot of death to really capture the tragedy of war and it's consequences. So that is why a lot of people had to die.