Mugglenet.com's Harry Potter Should Have Died - Emerson Spartz [45]
As both a billionaire and the richest woman in the UK, J.K.R. is in a position to basically do whatever she wants. And she doesn’t want to write an eighth book, so it would be selfish of fans to demand she continue writing.
Verdict
Should J.K.R. give the fans what they want—more, more, more? Or is it better to leave the barrier at Platform 9 and 3/4 closed for good? Of course, new readers will also keep coming along, and some older fans will never let it go—the bottom line is that J.K.R. will be able to sell books regardless of what she writes about. As much as we would selfishly love to continue reading new wizarding world adventures, we understand that J.K.R. has probably had enough. Verdict: All good things must come to an end.
Would the series be stronger if Voldemort had killed Harry?
Yes!
The ending of the series would be much more powerful if Harry had actually died for his friends at the hand of Voldemort. Instead, Harry “fake dies” and comes back to life, and after that the whole story seems like an anticlimactic cheat. Magic is not supposed to keep someone from dying the way it does with Harry. J.K.R. wrote that as a definitive statement on her website, then broke her own rule. But aren’t Horcruxes magic? Isn’t the Elder Wand magic? Isn’t Lily’s sacrificial blood that runs in Harry’s veins magic? All those things help Harry stay alive. And what about Dumbledore telling Harry in SS that Nicholas Flamel and his wife aren’t afraid of death and that it’s a big adventure no one should fear? Yet Harry dies and comes back to life at Dumbledore’s suggestion in the “King’s Cross” chapter. In DH, Harry is only semi-dead for what seems like a split second (which may be just a dream) and then he doesn’t really fight Voldemort at all, but preaches him a sermon about love and remorse. What a crock! So is Harry ever in danger at all? No. Is Voldemort really that powerful at all? No. It just seems lame and unsatisfying. What does Harry really give up in order to win? Nothing. He can’t die anyway, so there is no sacrifice.
Many other characters die fighting for Harry, and that is meaningful because they can’t cheat death the way he does. Even Voldemort taunts him in DH for letting all his friends die while he lives, and that’s a valid point. Harry hardly gets a scratch at the Battle of Hogwarts, dead or not. And according to the Epilogue, Harry’s big reward is that he gets to lead a ho-hum suburban life with Ginny and the kids. That was his big reward for staying alive? Where is the drama in that for the fans? It would be much more heroic to die on the battlefield and throw away the happy life he could have had. If Voldemort and Harry had both died, ending the war between them and saving the wizarding world, it would be a much stronger finish to the series.
No!
No way—the story is perfect just as it ends, with Harry victorious and Voldemort dead. Harry has suffered enough, and he needs to get Voldemort out of his head so he can be normal. Suffering and dying won’t avenge the deaths of all his friends or bring them back. This way, he chooses to give up his life just as his mother did, providing protection for everyone he loves, which miraculously lets him live. His parents would have wanted that, and so would Sirius, Dumbledore, Lupin, Tonks, and even Snape. The ending is completely satisfying because he really does die, but he rises again like the phoenix because his soul is pure. Then Harry has the satisfaction of telling Voldemort about the brilliant plans of Dumbledore and Snape, who completely fooled him for years. That is the best revenge for their deaths.
The message is that coming so close to dying, Harry learns to be compassionate to everyone and value a simple life with his wife and kids. If he had truly died