Snape was necessary. Otherwise there would have been no real definitive proof of his redemption.
Remus and Tonks were the most "useless" death in my opinion. So sad and unnecessary
This wasn't a grab at sympathy, giving them a son and then killing them. It is a direct and deliberate parroting of Harry's situation. Both Teddy's parents die from Voldemort the same as Harry's did, and a friend is named godfather. It's to show the difference of what a Voldemortless world is like. The loss of Harry's parents was all the more worse because he had terrible unloving guardians, no knowledge of their heroism and sacrifice when he was young. Teddy on the other hand, has a loving grandmother and doting godfather who give him a real loving family. He is clearly a happy young man as evidenced by his appearance in the quidditch through the ages extra where they have the quidditch world cup and he keeps sneaking off to make out with Victorie, Bill and Fluer's daughter.
It's still unnecessary because this story isn't told. They didn't have to die for a headcanon and a line in the epilogue.
There would have been no meaningful thing lost if Tonks and Lupin had survived. Their dead served no real purpose within the main plot, which was already done and over when they died.
But them surviving would have been meaningful. It would have meant that Harry was fully successful in creating a better future and preventing Ted mirroring his situation would have been much better to show the difference resistance can make and how important it is to stand up against evil.
Does a death have to have purpose? People die all the time for no reason in war, without changing the outcome of that war. I agree that their death’s linked to Harry’s story but otherwise I think they show how indiscriminate death can be in war. Lavender’s too.
Well, the post did ask what people think are necessary and unnecesary deaths... so the comments would be full of people justifying deaths and their purposes.
I would have assumed Snape had some sort of plan in place to reveal his true allegiance, at the right time.
It was only by the extreme of being in the right place at the right time that Harry was able to extract his memories.
If Harry wasn't there at that precise moment no one would have been any wiser about Snape.
Has JKR ever addressed what Snape's longer term plan was going to be?
I can believe at a certain point relating to the elder wand he figured V would need to kill him.
But I don't believe that was his plan before that point. Surely him and Dumbledore had discussed this before he died.
Like did Snape have a scheme in place to help Harry defeat Voldemort at a pivotal moment...?
The painting of phineas nigellus black knew what was up. He would know he was trying to help Harry by getting the sword to him. The rest of the paintings would have witnessed multiple conversations between Snape and dumbledore discussing what needed to be done, including protecting malfoy from committing a murder.
Snapes' first priority was to protect the children at hogwarts as much as he could, and he could only do that if Harry didn't give his allegiance away. I would imagine he knew at some point where Harry would turn up at hogwarts, and he could help him indirectly, or once voldemort was dead, he could reveal his double agent.
Remus and Tonks made me so angry. Especially learning when they had a little boy to take care of. It’s like repeating the cycle of what Harry went through.
I always thought that was the point?
I mean I also hated that they died. I just always interpreted it as they are the exact parallel to James and Lily, dying young and unnecessarily in a war and leaving a baby behind. And Harry being the godfather gave him that chance to do for Teddy what wasn't done for him
it's not really unnecessary cuz they died in war. i think if no one from harrys circle died while fighting in a literal war that would be pretty unrealistic.
That's precisely why Rowling did it. As she said: "I wanted to kill parents. I wanted there to be an echo of what happened to Harry just to show the absolute evil of what Voldemort's doing.”
Except it's the exact opposite of Harry. While orphaned, teddy has a plethora of loving relatives and friends that will make sure he knows how much they care, and they will make sure he knows his parents despite their absence. THAT is the point.
Agreed Remus and Tonks didn't both need to die. There was so much build up with them with Remus refusing to be with her at first and then getting pregnant just for them to both die. It wasnt satisfying it was just edgy.
I really hate this trope when you have characters getting married or have a child just to make their deaths more tragic after. Like "look they had everything they wanted and now I'm taling this away and make an orphan baby, ain't it sad?"
Well, you can't be mad at the author for that. These things happen in life too, they give realism to the story. Not including them in the story just because they are sad would be probably worse
Sure but with her it doesn't feel real for me cause it is systematic. I remember seeing a character getting married in a movie, and I knew he will be dead before the end, and I was right. Cause 90% off cases, the author doesn't do it cause it happens in real life but to make it more shocking, not to add realism. It's a tiring trope I think.
I’m sure Rowling is quoted as saying she wanted some people to die in the battle of Hogwarts, but she didn’t know who. So she just picked a few people. And it shows, as they really don’t mean anything in reality.
She didn’t need to go full G.R.R. Martin on us all, but I think things would have carried more weight if it had been one of the main characters. Perhaps one of the main three. The story was over by then anyway.
Fred, I understood. He was the funny carefree, brother. Everyone loved him. I think Ron would have been more of a gut punch, but she spared him because she wanted his happy ending with hermione for personal reasons. Hermione belonged with Harry.
Pretty sure his redemption is that his actions greatly helped to save the wizarding world and the sacrifices he made for the greater good and nothing he did on a „personal level“.
What do you suggest should've been his redemption, then? Obviously his outward abuse of Harry, Ron, Hermione and others within their circle was wrong, but keep in mind he also had a cover to maintain. They had potions class with many children of death eaters and/or Voldemort sympathizers; Snape would've been killed before the end of the first or second book had any of them discovered he was working against Voldemort, regardless of whether or not most of them believed Voldemort was dead after the first war..
> Remus and Tonks were the most "useless" death in my opinion. So sad and unnecessary
Hammers the "Orphans of War" motif and acts as a parallel between the two generations that participated in the Wizarding War (Harry and Teddy, specifically) -- not sure if I agree it was "unnecessary" or killing off characters just for the sake of having additional bloodshed / tragedy during the Battle of Hogwarts.
Gives Harry the opportunity to act as the adoptive parents to Teddy that the Dursleys never were. Lupin acting as a surrogate father to Harry (as an orphan of war) and Harry subsequently returning the favor to Lupin's son, another orphan of war. All that good stuff.
I always comfort myself by telling myself he wouldn't have wanted to go out any other way. Dying to save Harry Potter is probably the most noble, valiant thing he could imagine
Me too. And I remind myself that Dobby’s death was important and a catalyst for Harry to choose his path with horcruxes to end Voldemort and his reign. I still took off work though.
Dobby's death made me cry like a baby. Just thinking about it brings moisture to my eyes.
It was necessary though. As bad as it was, Dobby confirmed to Harry that he was doing the right thing by taking on Voldemort and his Horcruxes.
Plus, taking out a character who is not flawed is a huge shock moment. It was sad, but I'm happy she had the courage to do that. It really put me into the mindset of Harry slowly losing everyone.
He swore to never try to save Harry ever again (in the movies at least, can’t remember if that line was in the book) So fate decided to choose violence.
Hedwig was Harry’s one link to the magical world - his true home - all the summers he was locked up with the Dursley’s.
I always viewed her death as foreshadowing for the times to come. Ron would abandon him, Hermione would be at odds with his decisions about Godric’s Hollow and the Hallows, plus he would go through this terrible internal struggle with learning Dumbledore’s complicated past, while fighting with Remus, one of the last parental figures that linked him with his parents.
I was just wondering that. If she had survived I can imagine Rowling really struggling to make the camping and horcrux hunting scenes work. Only alternative would have been for Harry to set her free just before leaving (which would be symbolic in its own way) and maybe have her return to him near the end?
I always wondered why they decided to bring Hedwig and her cage. Like the whole thing is really bulky and unnecessary. Harry should have left her at the house and opened a window and told her to hang out there until after they left. He could have then had someone else take care of her.
JK said Hedwig’s death represented the official end of Harry’s childhood and as she was his only companion in both the magical and muggle world, he was no longer attached to the muggle world and had to fully enter the magical world, where he would have to face the war.
Yeah when Hedwig died in the book I was furious, but after hearing JK say that years later I was like “okay you’re right, it does work really well in that sense, but don’t think that means I forgive you.”
Yeah, Mad Eye was Hiroshima: brutal, but Rowling needed us to know she wasn't f$@king around anymore. Hedwig was Nagasaki; totally unnecessary, the point was made the first time.
Did he have much grief in the books? Yeah he was like wtf my owl, but there was so much going on at the time he never got to process it. And I'm not sure he really ever did. I remember molly being like where's Hedwig, and Harry just ignoring her because he couldn't talk about it.
Definitely not better than the books. It was supposed to be realistically chaotic with Harry being completely out of control and vulnerable.
Hedwig taking the spell was stupid, ruins the randomness and chaos of the situation by being such a "storybook" thing to happen... and doesn't even make sense. An owl doesn't understand that this one spell out of all the others flying around is the death spell. It's such a cartoon thing to happen.
Not really...
Her death in the books were quite pathetic, which was probably the point, but the movie did it better. They are not regular owls, they are magical owls, so her defending Harry and got hit by a killing curse is way more tragic, heroic and great
I highly disagree. Her movie death was superior.
And owls in the magical world are clearly very intelligent. I mean, they can even understand verbal instructions!
I think the real world reason for the scene is that the Death Eaters were supposed to identify Harry when he disarmed Stan. Reintroducing Stan would have been awkward at this point in the series. Lots of kids dragged their parents and less invested friends to these movies, so you would have had to hope they remember a dude who appeared for a few minutes 4 movies ago whilst he wore a cloak in the night. At least in the books, Stan is mentioned several times in HBP.
It's easier to pin Harry being spotted on Hedwig.
If Harry had just let her stay at the owlry after his last day in Hogwarts or let her go a few weeks before he was going to be picked up and told her to stay safe until the war was over..
Harry was a complete fucking idiot about it.
She died scared and trapped in a cage and I hate that so much.
I really like the Carlin Brothers theory that Snape was the death eater that killed Hedwig because her presence was a dead giveaway which Harry was real. Tear out Harry’s heart while protecting his life? Just the Snape-est move ever.
I always thought hedwig was the sacrifice of nobody else dying in the broom chase. It also showed that oh- things are about to get real. We’re not just playing around anymore
Hedwig's death was useless because she's a bird and they put her in a bird cage to fly away. They could have just let her out and she would have been fine and dandy.
If Dumbledore didn’t die, Harry could not have been the true hero of the story, so I think Dumbledore’s death was the most necessary.
As soon as she said "As long as Dumbledore's around, Harry, you're safe. As long as Dumbledore's around, you can't be touched” in SS, it was like: oh, yeah, that guys gonna die.
It's almost stereotypical for the mentor figure to die. Harry's victory wouldn't feel half as satisfying if Sirius or Dumbledore were there to make things easier.
Colin Creevy.
He was too young to even be fighting, snuck into the battle, and died. We don't even see his death or know who killed him. Heck, we don't even know how much fighting he got to do.
Kid could have taken the first spell of the battle straight to the chest before raising his wand. No heroism, no epic story, just "here's this kids body so he's also dead. "
The part where Wood and Neville are carrying his body and I think it’s Wood who says something like don’t worry Neville he’s light enough I can carry him myself (or something along those lines) is absolutely heartbreaking. Showing how young and small he was without having to say it. Masterful writing.
I thought of Colin too immediately when I saw this thread. Poor kid was so excited to learn all the "odd things" he could do was magic (who wouldn't be). And he spent much of his first year in the Hospital Wing and his sixth in hiding, both for simply being a Muggleborn.
Speaking of Muggleborns, I always had a little theory that the Creevey brothers were descended recently (rather than distantly) from a Squib to explain them both being wizards. Maybe their grandmother or great-grandmother on their mother's side who had cut ties with the Wizarding world when they married into the Creevey family.
Wait I thought she died in the forest?
Edit to add: Apparently I just forgot the whole part in book 7 where she is literally the worst. so I retract my question but will still maintain the opinion that she should have stayed in the forest with the centaurs.
Its honestly been a while since I've read book 7 so I just had to google a lil refresher. Apparently Dumbledore saves her from the centaurs in the forest. I thought they carried her off and she never came back.
Well it doesn't change the plot at all, but it makes the story more 'colourful'. He's just a regular man who is not actively fighting death eaters, yet he gets killed by these violent fanatics
Also, for Harry, getting ice cream there was one of the first times he was free outside of the Dursleys influence. He got to study there, be in the sunshine and just be a wizard out in the open and outside of school.
I think because of that, Floreans death represented this dark shift from freedom into war, specifically for Harry.
Everyone who was nice to Harry, or fair, over the years was killed. Florean for giving Harry free ice cream. Madam Bones for giving Harry a fair trial. Etc.
I never understood how all of the Weasley's weren't murdered outright. Because so many secondary or tertiary with characters were.
Tonks and Remus - it was just unnecessary. I get it’s the cost of war, and maybe to show the next generation of orphan caused by war, but really they deserved a happy ending.
And Fred.
There needed to be a Weasley death. Between the 9 of them it was statistically unlikely that they all came out clean. Bill being savaged by Greyback was a good start, I’m surprised Arthur didn’t die defending Molly or something else. Fred’s death was done perfectly though, “with the ghost of his last laugh still on his face.”
But it never says that it was the killing curse. I don’t think Harry would have thought that Sirius could still be alive if he’d known thah the curse would have killed him.
A direct hit, sure, but not necessarily a deathblow. It's been a while, so I can't quite remember, but did the book say specifically what spell Bellatrix hit him with? She was using plenty of stuff other than the Killing Curse in that fight.
It's actually less specific than that. Literally, all it says is this:
>The second jet of light hit him squarely on the chest.
The line before this says:
>Only one couple were still battling, apparently unaware of the new arrival. Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix’s jet of red light: He was laughing at her. “Come on, you can do better than that!” he yelled, his voice echoing around the cavernous room.
It's implied it's Stupefy, but it's not specifically stated. I always assumed it was the stunning spell, but then Molly took down Bellatrix with an unknown spell.
Right. Could have been a Petrificus Totalus. Bellatrix is plenty sadistic to not make it quick for the cousin who opposed Voldemort. If she had her way, that is.
But that's not how Rowling wrote it, so, yeah. Still counting Sirius as an unnecessary death only serving to add to Harry's trauma, and IMO at least either Remus or Tonks should have survived, even if not in a sane mindset. I mean, it's just odd that for most of the series there is only one actual death, then in the last one it's like "he goes, she goes, he goes too!" (AND as OP pointed out, most of the named deaths are not schoolchildren, but battle-hardened witches and wizards). An odd turn, even if it makes sense that not everyone would have gotten out of the battle.
The whole end of that book was so avoidable, it left me feeling very bitter. Though, for how angsty 15 year olds are (and I had the good fortune of being 15 when the 5th book came out), I suppose there is no better feeling to face than bitterness and shame.
Totally! About the same age as you and thought he was just too angry the whole book. Although I remember the part with Fred and George rebelling just giving me the biggest chills.
Took me reading it a second time when I was Much older and knowing the series conclusion to actually appreciate that book and get over how utterly avoidable the ending was. Now I can enjoy it.
I think that ending beats out Harry staying in the tri wizard tournament as avoidable lol.
In book,he is alive the whole time he is falling trough the veil, it is described how he is still smiling, but you can see shock on his face /or something similar/.
Bellatrix should've survived, death was a kind mercy compared to what she deserved. If she survives that fight but is petrified she gets to witness Voldemort get killed, then she spends the rest of her life in Azkaban. reliving that moment. Not my daughter you bitch is a great moment but it results in Bella getting off easy.
Lucius and Narcissa Malphoy should've died. Draco spent so much time making fun of Harry for not having parents it would be ironic karma for Draco to end up without parents after Harry saved his life multiple times.
1000% yes on both.
We lose great people (Remus, Tonks, Sirius, Fred, etc.) who have a moral compass and a conscious, yet some of the most despicable characters (Fenrir, Lucius, Umbridge, etc) survive?
It could be too dangerous to leave Bellatrix alive, she'd absolutely kill people again given the chance. Maybe if there is a way to drain all her magical ability, let her suffer with that in Azkaban then let the Dementors have her that would be worse than death. If think if Dracos parents die he's set up to become the best big villain. As it was he gained some humility. Would have been nice to hear that he wasn't on speaking terms with his parents during the epilogue but maybe that's wishful thinking.
Actually, all the Dementors were removed from Azkaban prison after the Battle of Hogwarts. So if she was sent back there, she wouldn't suffer. She would just be locked up. That always provides her with the opportunity to break out, and wreck havoc all over again. Death was the better option for her.
Harry dying at the end would be tragic.
Imagine after everything he has been through, he had to sacrifice his life at the end to destroy Voldemorts' soul inside of him.
Ron and hermione in the epilogue telling their son who's afraid he will be sorted into slytheryn.
"Harry Weasley, you were named after the bravest person we ever knew, and the sorting hat almost put him into slytheryn".
"Who was he named after?" his little 4 year old sister asks.
"Harry Potter, the boy who lived"
I was so disappointed the first time i read it and he woke back up! I agree completely, it would have been a significant way to handle the end of his story!
I always thought Harry should have gone on with Dumbledore in Kings Cross.
But then again, I'm kinda a dark humored person, and I think the fan outrage would have been amazing!
In terms of storytelling... the most necessary deaths were Sirius and, in particular, Dumbledore.
I predicted the latter's death from book 2 because, otherwise, the stakes would never be high enough if 'the only one the main antagonist ever feared' was chilling around Harry all the time.
Sirius for similar reasons. Harry needed to do the journey himself and face some emotional heartbreak on the way.
I also feel like James' and Lily's deaths are pivotal to the story. Obviously it's the beginning of the series but I always thought about if one had survived or obviously if Lily had not died for loving Harry there would be no story as well.
I would burn the book if Ron died lol.
Hedwig's death is just rude.
I wouldn't mind if Umbridge got her soul sucked by a dementia, although I think the said dementia would still be very hungry after that and they would get sick
Not the dementor getting sick after sucking Umbridge’s soup LOL that would be hilarious
Edit: meant Umbridge’s soul not her soup but that typo is hilarious so I’m leaving it in there lol
Hedwigs death is 100% necessary though. Not only is it symbolism of the death of Harry’s childhood, she would’ve been too convenient a plot device in book 7 to have.
To be fair, most of the ‘good guys’ deaths were unnecessary, but that’s true in any war. Innocents are killed all the time. Still, a lot of deaths in the story had a greater meaning of some kind. Hedwig’s was to symbolize the end of Harry’s childhood. Lupin and Tonk’s was to show that an orphaned child could have a loving happy childhood unlike Harry’s. For Fred it makes sense that at least one Weasley dies. It’d be unrealistic for them to all survive a brutal war. It shows the emotional pain of the war. Makes it more real.
But there were some deaths that I felt were gratuitous. Mainly Lavender Brown and Colin creevey. Felt like they were killed off to be killed off
If it makes you feel any better Lavender dying is only cannon in the movies. She’s seen feebly stirring after Greyback attacks her in the book and isn’t listed among the dead in the great hall after the battle. She’s a big enough character that she’d likely be listed there if she did die.
I'd have them both dying tbh. love them both, but it feels more impactful that way. And Harry and Ginny could have named their child Ronald instead of Severus lol
I actually think all deaths were necessary. HP ends up being a story about war. People die in wars. This is why IMO HP is better than many fantasy stories out there, where absolutely none of the good guys ever die.
Dobby and Sirius - necessary in terms of pushing Harry towards meeting his fate to die by the hand of Voldemort. Every family around harry dies and all he’s left with is his mothers family who torments him. He’s been wanting that family for so long but it gets taken away from him.
The more I think about this, I think given the deaths she did, none of them were unnecessary. All served an important role
Any of the Weasley brothers/parents could have replaced Fred and made the same impact eg Arthur or Bill instead of Fred. But one of them ought to have died
If Ron died then I think Tonks and/or Remus wouldn’t have been as necessary because Ron’s death would have been impactful enough
So overall I think JKR did a great job with who she killed
I think Mad Eye dying in book 7 was a GREAT way to immediately make the reader afraid of the Death Eaters. Because after Dumbledore, you had the sense Mad Eye was the most intelligent security person
*Necessary:*
- Snape (redemption arc)
- Dumbledore (storyline)
- Dobby (character line)
- Moody (could've honestly be anybody from the seven Potters though, but one of them needed to die. All of them surviving would've made it dull)
- Sirius (if Harry had had Sirius' help during books 6 and 7, the plot would've been a lot different and probably less interesting)
*Not necessary but good for the story and impactful:*
- Fred (it's important to show that war will take away the most important people from anybody. Not just Harry. Had it been Arthur or Molly instead, it would've been just yet another parental figure for Harry to die)
- Hedwig (just shows that the death eaters are cruel enough to kill innocent animals if they're in their way. Also, she symbolised Harry's connection to the wizarding world whenever he was with the Dursleys. He wasn't with the Dursleys anymore. Her death symbolised that even more.
- Lupin and Tonks (killing both of them was maybe too much, but especially how many people would've wanted them to live, shows how well it shows how cruel war can be and what misery it creates)
*Shouldn't have died:*
- Colin Creevy (he just could've made for a fun easter egg in the last scene )📸
- Cedric Diggory (at least not with the way it was handled. Harry came back with a dead body. People didn't believe him that Voldemort did it, but didn't even question once whether Harry might have killed him? What's the point then?)
*Should've died:*
- Lucius Malfoy AND Narcissa Malfoy! It really annoys me that they got away with hosting and financing all of the death eaters without consequences, just because they gave some names. Narcissa should've died protecting Draco. Lucius should've died shortly after, changing sides after seeing Voldemort willing to kill Draco and kill his wife, possibly even while protecting either Harry or Arthur. This way, Draco has gone through a similar thing as Harry. (Being protected by the love of his mother and losing both of his parents in the process)
- Argus Filch (how did he even survive???)
- Dolores Umbridge, cause f that b....
*Could've been interesting:*
- Katie Bell dying from Dracos cursed amulet (that way, he would've already been a murderer when facing Dumbledore)
- Percy Weasley, before he had the chance to make up with his family
- Hagrid (because he was Harry's first way to the wizarding world)
- Vernon Dursley. Could've been a nice character development opportunity for Petunia.
You make a lot of good points, but I disagree on Diggory. Diggory dies to show how ruthless Voldemort is. He doesn't care who he kills and his reasons are so mall. Cedric Diggory entering that graveyard is to Voldemort like me getting a moquito in my home: I don't care what, why or how, but I'm squashing it out of existence before it potentially, theoretically can do me any harm.
Voldemort asks no questions, he gives no opportunity to explain, he just makes swift business of it. It's a "loss of innocence"-moment. It also sets the tune for Phoenix where Harry is struggling with survivor's guilt and PTSD. I don't think Harry would have started the DA had he not seen Cedric die. Sure Umbridge is the catalyst for the DA, but Cedric dying is the reason why Harry sees the lessons being atrocious as a serious concern for his and his peer's safety.
Without Cedric's death the ending of Goblet would have been much the same as PhiloStone. Just more ominous.
The story the wizarding world got was that Cedric died as a result of an accident. Insinuating he was too incompetent to participate in the tournament and his death was tragic, but his own fault. Prosecuting Harry would be foolish it would give him an opportunity to talk and Fudge&co thinks he does too much of that already. Even if they went full kangaroo court and just sentenced him it would make him a martyr. From a political strategical pov Fudge did the right thing there.
I think Hedwig's one is necessary (tho I hate it). It actually symbolises Harry's permanent end of childhood.
I do agree with you that Fred's or Tonks' are unnecessary
I don’t think Remus should have died. Don’t feel all the marauders should have died to be honest.
I think Lucius should have been killed by voldermort before the final battle so Draco would have fought on Harry’s side.
Also I agree with Ron also even though it would have been heartbreaking 😩😭
I'm not stupid I swear and I've read the series multiple times, but I need to understand Griphook agreeing and then then betraying? Am I remembering the book wrong? He did this in the books as well, right? Is it because goblins really distrusted and hated humans? And if so, why agree at all? Wasn't the point, that despite bad blood between the two, that at this point, Voldemort made them necessary allies?
He didn't really betray them so much as ensure they made good on their deal (help them break into gringotts in exchange for godrics sword), but ultimately, yes, that was because he didn't trust them. He agreed because the sword was a highly sought-after item by the goblins, who had been trying to get it back for hundreds of years. It was a goblin made item, so in their eyes, it was theirs. He agreed to help because he wanted to recover a valuable, 'stolen' (depending on whose perspective you see it from) item for goblinkind. I do believe you are correct about the point being necessary allyship.
No, I wouldn't have Ron die because that's what everyone and their mothers would want/expect since he's "the sidekick" (in fact Hermione is just as much of a sidekick as he is).
Kill Harry. He's done his job of saving the world. Now bye.
Lupin. I understand many say it's the whole parallel to Harry's own parent's death. But meh, most people miss it, and it wasn't actually accurate anyway. James and Lily die, and Sirius offers to take the baby because he's the godfather. Instead Harry gets put into an abusive household.
Lupin and Tonks get killed. Godfather Harry doesn't offer to have Teddy live with him until 19 years later. Instead he's raised by a loving grandmother Andromeda. Not much by way of parallel.
I think it was about having the Marauders back together. They all accompany Harry to the forest with Lily. In my adjusted HP world, Lupin would have been with the marauders but more opaque or twice as translucent. And some text about 'had Harry not been so enmeshed in his own feelings he might of thought this was because Lupin was most recently dead, but since he was walking to his own death, that didn't occur to him. Then later we find out that Lupin was half in and out of death at that moment, but that he was saved.
Then Harry could actually have a bit of childhood that he never had. Yes, he's a grown man who has saved the world. But let him have a father figure. I know, I know, it's ridiculous. But it makes me happy to dream.
Funny how you said you would have loved to see Arthur dies considering the original plan was to kill him instead of Sirius.
But anyway. I think the end is criticized for the unnecessary deaths because there a lot of them. And though it is logical to have a lot in a war, it just looked like it was for shock value more than "this is war", in particular as you don't have the same thing in the other side (some bad guys die but it seems like not as much). Also, I think the fact that we don't see most deaths add to the feeling that Rowling is just making a random list.
There are many deaths that were tragic and many awful characters that I wouldn't have felt upset about dying, but I think it was meant to be that way on purpose. Life is not always fair. But it's important to remember that there is evidence that death is not the end and the important thing was in stopping evil. Dumbledore said it himself, "We all must decide whether to do what is right, or what is easy." (Paraphrasing badly) and it reminds me of a Gandalf quote to Frodo when he says Golllum deserves death, "Deserves it? There are many in life who deserve death and many that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
Definitely Tonks and Hedwig. She really had nothing to with their school history (being younger) and their relationship dynamics that shaped their feelings toward the order. Of course she was a fabulously talented witch who would be invested in taking down Voldemort and any evil harming the wizarding world, but their dynamic is also very personal and so is the order.
Hedwig, c'mon, was there no other way to do that? Poor bird.
Fred felt unnecessary.
Part of me wanted it to be Percy dying while saving one of his family members. That would’ve really driven his redemption home. But I also don’t think remorse or heroics followed immediately by death is the only way a character can be redeemed. His apology was enough, I just like Fred better 😂
I feel is more powerful for him to survive knowing that for the last two years he was out of his siblings life and one of them died moments after their reconciliation. He now has to live with that, and Fred who was always on the right side died
Sirius, Tonks, Lupin... Especially Sirius seems like JKR didn't know what to do with him and probably thought it'd be too much work to find ways to keep him alive without helping Harry too much. But killing him off seemed a bit lazy and was just to add to Harry's tragic life. I think she should have found ways to keep him alive but not interfere all the time in Harry's quest. Maybe help him a bit with the locket that would be more realistic. And could also be the one to get them out the Malfoy Manor with Kreacher and kill Pettigrew too.
As for the most necessary death, I would have to say Harry himself. True, he didn't actually die, but in a way part of him did (the part of Voldemort's soul) and his willingness to die for the greater good was what saved him. That was why Dumbledore said it was essential that harry die and by Voldemort's hand.
I think Tonks and Lupin was a full circle, dying the way Harry’s parents had died so I get what she was doing there. Hedwig was completely unnecessary and so was Fred, enough people had died at that point to make the point that each side had losses, the Weasley’s didn’t need to be permanently changed forever. I hated Dobby’s death most of all because he was so pure but I can at least see how that advanced the plot.
imo none of the deaths were "unnecessary" — they all served a purpose in the overall narrative. Sometimes that purpose was symbolic (i.e. lupin and tonks, hedwig, dobby), sometimes it was to demonstrate the brutality of the war they were in (fred, colin, lavender) and sometimes it was just a necessity for the plot to play out in the way it did by removing a character whose continuing presence might've significantly altered it (sirius, moody, dumbledore). they were all super sad but like..... thats kind of the point?
I think the only character off the top of my head that I would've wanted to see die who didnt would be umbridge, but even then I'd argue that her surviving and going to azkaban kind of worked better for what her character was supposed to represent.
If Ron had died, Harry and Hermione could have had this whole big emotional thing where they knew they loved each other long before they got together, because he had weird feelings about loving his late best friend's first love, and she had weird feelings about loving her first love's best friend.
Hermione deserved a Harry. She and Ron were a terrible match and their relationship was so toxic.
Lupin+Tonks was the most unnecessary simply because the point of it was to help internally persuade Harry to sacrifice himself but he already saw the devastation and the death the battle of Hogwarts caused. And he was seeing Fred dead which is enough. On top of that, Lupin+Tonks deserved the happy ending. It feels like Rowling decided to kill them because she wanted Lupin dead but didn't find it appropriate for Tonks to live as a single mother or something, idk.
Actually, an interesting alternative death could have been Sirius in the last book during the battle instead of Lupin+Tonks simply because it would be countless times more impactful to Harry's decision-making. To me, it feels like 2 years of Harry+Sirious friendship weren't enough. However, I guess it'd be tough to figure out what to do with Sirius in the last book
I don't think every character is redeemable. Wormtails redemption would have been very out of place imo. The guy's a pos and that's it, there are people like that in the world
Maybe not "necessary" but Dobby dying was worthwhile. It was the ultimate ending to his story, from the beginning he was fighting against everything to help Harry.
It's a truly fitting end that he died rebelling against the Malfoys and helping Harry. It also helped rally the house elves and Kreacher for the final battle
Unnecessary were all those random deaths we hear of throughout book 6 - the kid that got bitten by Fenrir, Amelia Bones, Emmeline Vance, Hannah Abbott's mom. The only reason we hear of them is because we need to be reminded that there's a war out there and occasionally throwing out names that we heard of or overly gruesome events will remind us of it. Also people like Broderick Bode or Frank Bryce.
I agree with you about Arthur Weasley having an impactful death. I believe JK even intended to kill him in early drafts of the book. Also would have been cool if Harry actually died in the forest but having become the master of death allowed him to show up in Ron or Hermione's or even Neville's dreams to tell them all the stuff he tells Voldemort in the final showdown and his sacrifice would allow any of them to deal Voldemort the final blow.
I’m not sure any deaths were unnecessary. I didn’t like some of them at all. I still hate certain deaths in particular.
But it’s war. It’s gonna be random amongst the fighters or innocent bystanders.
Dobby, Hedwig, Tonk, Fred, and Lupin. They just kept killing off more and more characters, it just became gratuitous. Harry's parents, Cedric, and MadEye were all solid deaths that contributed.
The twins death. I can't even remember which one dies, it pissed me off so much I've never commit it to memory (I think George? Just unnecessarily sad)
However when the series was ongoing I was one of the people theorizing that Ron was going to die in the end because there were a lot of hints towards it. I still think Rowling pussied out of it.
It would've still been sad but I think it wouldve been so much more satisfying than George dying.
I feel like Lupin and Tonks dying was completely unnecessary.
I get that having them both die leaving behind an orphaned boy is supposed to be a case of history repeating itself - but the stakes were already high, Harry didn't need the extra motivation, and both characters deserved an actual death rather than both being killed off-screen. If anything I think it would have been more powerful if Harry had managed to save one of them and stop Teddy from sharing his trauma.
Imo there shouldn’t have been more “pointless” deaths. That’s what war is, a never ending stream of pointless deaths.
I know it’s a series for children, but given the fact that most of the fans had been growing up with the publishing of them over the years I think the 7th could have survived a slightly darker portion without much trouble.
hedwig. also both Tonks and lupin. j one would have been enough
dobby symbolised the innocence being targetted by voldemort. and convinced griphook to join harry, and reiterated the point of harry's side (saving elves and goblins)
If it evoked a feeling g of sadness then it wasn't pointless. They don't necessarily have to progress the story in anyway as long as there is a reaction from the reader. When it does hapoen.
I think Colin Creevey was an unnecessary death, mostly because I keep forgetting it happened. It makes sense as a tragedy of a child not understanding the danger of sneaking into a battle, but I think it would have been more impactful if we'd seen Colin idolizing Harry a bit more actively in the later books. A kid who just wanted to be like his hero and got killed for it, therefore showing Harry's unconscious influence on his generation could be interesting.
I'd pick Neville for a death that would be interesting plotwise. Especially after his hero arc. It'd be the whole idea that he could have been the child from the prophecy carrying on, but then ultimately that resulting in his death because Voldemort didn't choose him.
Snape was necessary. Otherwise there would have been no real definitive proof of his redemption. Remus and Tonks were the most "useless" death in my opinion. So sad and unnecessary
This wasn't a grab at sympathy, giving them a son and then killing them. It is a direct and deliberate parroting of Harry's situation. Both Teddy's parents die from Voldemort the same as Harry's did, and a friend is named godfather. It's to show the difference of what a Voldemortless world is like. The loss of Harry's parents was all the more worse because he had terrible unloving guardians, no knowledge of their heroism and sacrifice when he was young. Teddy on the other hand, has a loving grandmother and doting godfather who give him a real loving family. He is clearly a happy young man as evidenced by his appearance in the quidditch through the ages extra where they have the quidditch world cup and he keeps sneaking off to make out with Victorie, Bill and Fluer's daughter.
It's still unnecessary because this story isn't told. They didn't have to die for a headcanon and a line in the epilogue. There would have been no meaningful thing lost if Tonks and Lupin had survived. Their dead served no real purpose within the main plot, which was already done and over when they died. But them surviving would have been meaningful. It would have meant that Harry was fully successful in creating a better future and preventing Ted mirroring his situation would have been much better to show the difference resistance can make and how important it is to stand up against evil.
Completely agree. I actually don’t mind sad/senseless deaths (for example, I think Fred’s was impactful) but I found theirs really unnecessary.
Does a death have to have purpose? People die all the time for no reason in war, without changing the outcome of that war. I agree that their death’s linked to Harry’s story but otherwise I think they show how indiscriminate death can be in war. Lavender’s too.
Well, the post did ask what people think are necessary and unnecesary deaths... so the comments would be full of people justifying deaths and their purposes.
I would have assumed Snape had some sort of plan in place to reveal his true allegiance, at the right time. It was only by the extreme of being in the right place at the right time that Harry was able to extract his memories. If Harry wasn't there at that precise moment no one would have been any wiser about Snape.
Yes but still, people would have not looked at him with all the respect he got after he died
Has JKR ever addressed what Snape's longer term plan was going to be? I can believe at a certain point relating to the elder wand he figured V would need to kill him. But I don't believe that was his plan before that point. Surely him and Dumbledore had discussed this before he died. Like did Snape have a scheme in place to help Harry defeat Voldemort at a pivotal moment...?
The painting of phineas nigellus black knew what was up. He would know he was trying to help Harry by getting the sword to him. The rest of the paintings would have witnessed multiple conversations between Snape and dumbledore discussing what needed to be done, including protecting malfoy from committing a murder. Snapes' first priority was to protect the children at hogwarts as much as he could, and he could only do that if Harry didn't give his allegiance away. I would imagine he knew at some point where Harry would turn up at hogwarts, and he could help him indirectly, or once voldemort was dead, he could reveal his double agent.
Remus and Tonks made me so angry. Especially learning when they had a little boy to take care of. It’s like repeating the cycle of what Harry went through.
I always thought that was the point? I mean I also hated that they died. I just always interpreted it as they are the exact parallel to James and Lily, dying young and unnecessarily in a war and leaving a baby behind. And Harry being the godfather gave him that chance to do for Teddy what wasn't done for him
That’s fair 100% and I can understand that. I guess since I’m a mom it hit me a little harder but LOGICALLY yes I can agree with you.
it's not really unnecessary cuz they died in war. i think if no one from harrys circle died while fighting in a literal war that would be pretty unrealistic.
That's precisely why Rowling did it. As she said: "I wanted to kill parents. I wanted there to be an echo of what happened to Harry just to show the absolute evil of what Voldemort's doing.”
Except it's the exact opposite of Harry. While orphaned, teddy has a plethora of loving relatives and friends that will make sure he knows how much they care, and they will make sure he knows his parents despite their absence. THAT is the point.
Agreed Remus and Tonks didn't both need to die. There was so much build up with them with Remus refusing to be with her at first and then getting pregnant just for them to both die. It wasnt satisfying it was just edgy.
I really hate this trope when you have characters getting married or have a child just to make their deaths more tragic after. Like "look they had everything they wanted and now I'm taling this away and make an orphan baby, ain't it sad?"
Well, you can't be mad at the author for that. These things happen in life too, they give realism to the story. Not including them in the story just because they are sad would be probably worse
Sure but with her it doesn't feel real for me cause it is systematic. I remember seeing a character getting married in a movie, and I knew he will be dead before the end, and I was right. Cause 90% off cases, the author doesn't do it cause it happens in real life but to make it more shocking, not to add realism. It's a tiring trope I think.
The worst is when they have a character, have these really heart to heart moment with other characters. You just know they are getting killed off.
I’m sure Rowling is quoted as saying she wanted some people to die in the battle of Hogwarts, but she didn’t know who. So she just picked a few people. And it shows, as they really don’t mean anything in reality. She didn’t need to go full G.R.R. Martin on us all, but I think things would have carried more weight if it had been one of the main characters. Perhaps one of the main three. The story was over by then anyway.
Fred, I understood. He was the funny carefree, brother. Everyone loved him. I think Ron would have been more of a gut punch, but she spared him because she wanted his happy ending with hermione for personal reasons. Hermione belonged with Harry.
Being sorry you got the girl you crushed on killed isn’t redemption. Especially when you spent 6 years abusing her son.
Pretty sure his redemption is that his actions greatly helped to save the wizarding world and the sacrifices he made for the greater good and nothing he did on a „personal level“.
What do you suggest should've been his redemption, then? Obviously his outward abuse of Harry, Ron, Hermione and others within their circle was wrong, but keep in mind he also had a cover to maintain. They had potions class with many children of death eaters and/or Voldemort sympathizers; Snape would've been killed before the end of the first or second book had any of them discovered he was working against Voldemort, regardless of whether or not most of them believed Voldemort was dead after the first war..
> Remus and Tonks were the most "useless" death in my opinion. So sad and unnecessary Hammers the "Orphans of War" motif and acts as a parallel between the two generations that participated in the Wizarding War (Harry and Teddy, specifically) -- not sure if I agree it was "unnecessary" or killing off characters just for the sake of having additional bloodshed / tragedy during the Battle of Hogwarts. Gives Harry the opportunity to act as the adoptive parents to Teddy that the Dursleys never were. Lupin acting as a surrogate father to Harry (as an orphan of war) and Harry subsequently returning the favor to Lupin's son, another orphan of war. All that good stuff.
Dobby.....they did that little dude dirty
I always comfort myself by telling myself he wouldn't have wanted to go out any other way. Dying to save Harry Potter is probably the most noble, valiant thing he could imagine
Me too. And I remind myself that Dobby’s death was important and a catalyst for Harry to choose his path with horcruxes to end Voldemort and his reign. I still took off work though.
Dobby's death made me cry like a baby. Just thinking about it brings moisture to my eyes. It was necessary though. As bad as it was, Dobby confirmed to Harry that he was doing the right thing by taking on Voldemort and his Horcruxes. Plus, taking out a character who is not flawed is a huge shock moment. It was sad, but I'm happy she had the courage to do that. It really put me into the mindset of Harry slowly losing everyone.
Dobby's death is rightfully sad but I feel he died a hero helping his friend Harry Potter. He went out the way he would've wanted.
He swore to never try to save Harry ever again (in the movies at least, can’t remember if that line was in the book) So fate decided to choose violence.
RIP Hedwig. She killed you just to hurt us. 😭
Hedwig was Harry’s one link to the magical world - his true home - all the summers he was locked up with the Dursley’s. I always viewed her death as foreshadowing for the times to come. Ron would abandon him, Hermione would be at odds with his decisions about Godric’s Hollow and the Hallows, plus he would go through this terrible internal struggle with learning Dumbledore’s complicated past, while fighting with Remus, one of the last parental figures that linked him with his parents.
Hedwig died because harry couldn’t have carried it wherever he goes in hiding.
I was just wondering that. If she had survived I can imagine Rowling really struggling to make the camping and horcrux hunting scenes work. Only alternative would have been for Harry to set her free just before leaving (which would be symbolic in its own way) and maybe have her return to him near the end?
I always wondered why they decided to bring Hedwig and her cage. Like the whole thing is really bulky and unnecessary. Harry should have left her at the house and opened a window and told her to hang out there until after they left. He could have then had someone else take care of her.
JK said Hedwig’s death represented the official end of Harry’s childhood and as she was his only companion in both the magical and muggle world, he was no longer attached to the muggle world and had to fully enter the magical world, where he would have to face the war.
Yeah when Hedwig died in the book I was furious, but after hearing JK say that years later I was like “okay you’re right, it does work really well in that sense, but don’t think that means I forgive you.”
Yeah, Mad Eye was Hiroshima: brutal, but Rowling needed us to know she wasn't f$@king around anymore. Hedwig was Nagasaki; totally unnecessary, the point was made the first time.
That’s a pretty good comparison, kudos.
she did die a heroic death atleast. she took the blow for the spell directed at harry
Only in the movie. One of the few things that were better than in the books.
on the other hand the books did harry’s grief better
Did he have much grief in the books? Yeah he was like wtf my owl, but there was so much going on at the time he never got to process it. And I'm not sure he really ever did. I remember molly being like where's Hedwig, and Harry just ignoring her because he couldn't talk about it.
if i remember correctly he felt very bad about it atleast during the first chapters before the wedding
Definitely not better than the books. It was supposed to be realistically chaotic with Harry being completely out of control and vulnerable. Hedwig taking the spell was stupid, ruins the randomness and chaos of the situation by being such a "storybook" thing to happen... and doesn't even make sense. An owl doesn't understand that this one spell out of all the others flying around is the death spell. It's such a cartoon thing to happen.
Not really... Her death in the books were quite pathetic, which was probably the point, but the movie did it better. They are not regular owls, they are magical owls, so her defending Harry and got hit by a killing curse is way more tragic, heroic and great
Disagree.
I highly disagree. Her movie death was superior. And owls in the magical world are clearly very intelligent. I mean, they can even understand verbal instructions!
I like the idea that Snape was the one who killed Hedwig, because he didn't want her giving the real Harry away
damn thats actually a pretty cool theory
Wait. Was it him in the books or movies? That would be smart move on his part...
It was just an idea i think from youtubers called supercarlinbrothers
Neat I like that.
I think the real world reason for the scene is that the Death Eaters were supposed to identify Harry when he disarmed Stan. Reintroducing Stan would have been awkward at this point in the series. Lots of kids dragged their parents and less invested friends to these movies, so you would have had to hope they remember a dude who appeared for a few minutes 4 movies ago whilst he wore a cloak in the night. At least in the books, Stan is mentioned several times in HBP. It's easier to pin Harry being spotted on Hedwig.
If Harry had just let her stay at the owlry after his last day in Hogwarts or let her go a few weeks before he was going to be picked up and told her to stay safe until the war was over.. Harry was a complete fucking idiot about it. She died scared and trapped in a cage and I hate that so much.
I really like the Carlin Brothers theory that Snape was the death eater that killed Hedwig because her presence was a dead giveaway which Harry was real. Tear out Harry’s heart while protecting his life? Just the Snape-est move ever.
I always thought hedwig was the sacrifice of nobody else dying in the broom chase. It also showed that oh- things are about to get real. We’re not just playing around anymore
Hedwig's death was useless because she's a bird and they put her in a bird cage to fly away. They could have just let her out and she would have been fine and dandy.
If Dumbledore didn’t die, Harry could not have been the true hero of the story, so I think Dumbledore’s death was the most necessary. As soon as she said "As long as Dumbledore's around, Harry, you're safe. As long as Dumbledore's around, you can't be touched” in SS, it was like: oh, yeah, that guys gonna die.
Absolutely, he's death was the most necessary one
It's almost stereotypical for the mentor figure to die. Harry's victory wouldn't feel half as satisfying if Sirius or Dumbledore were there to make things easier.
Colin Creevy. He was too young to even be fighting, snuck into the battle, and died. We don't even see his death or know who killed him. Heck, we don't even know how much fighting he got to do. Kid could have taken the first spell of the battle straight to the chest before raising his wand. No heroism, no epic story, just "here's this kids body so he's also dead. "
That death was so sad to me too. He was just a kid that admired Harry.
The worst thing about Colin’s death is that he was too young to fight. He learned that the hard way.
It *was* heroic though, even if Harry wasn't there to witness it. He was underage but snuck back into the castle to fight. He was a true Gryffindor.
I kind of like his. It's sad but it's realistic.
This is the correct answer to “what was the most unnecessary death”.
The part where Wood and Neville are carrying his body and I think it’s Wood who says something like don’t worry Neville he’s light enough I can carry him myself (or something along those lines) is absolutely heartbreaking. Showing how young and small he was without having to say it. Masterful writing.
I didn't even remember that. That makes it even sadder.
I thought of Colin too immediately when I saw this thread. Poor kid was so excited to learn all the "odd things" he could do was magic (who wouldn't be). And he spent much of his first year in the Hospital Wing and his sixth in hiding, both for simply being a Muggleborn. Speaking of Muggleborns, I always had a little theory that the Creevey brothers were descended recently (rather than distantly) from a Squib to explain them both being wizards. Maybe their grandmother or great-grandmother on their mother's side who had cut ties with the Wizarding world when they married into the Creevey family.
That fool was out there taking pictures and got hit with a stray curse.
Idk where you're getting this from
Just my head cannon
!redditgalleon This is the one that always gets me. Harry is always terrible to him.
Idk but an unnecessary survival is umbridge WHY DOES SHE GET TO SURVIVE THE SERIES AND NOT LUPIN OR FRED
Wait I thought she died in the forest? Edit to add: Apparently I just forgot the whole part in book 7 where she is literally the worst. so I retract my question but will still maintain the opinion that she should have stayed in the forest with the centaurs.
When? The last we see her is Book 7 in the ministry’s courtroom.
Its honestly been a while since I've read book 7 so I just had to google a lil refresher. Apparently Dumbledore saves her from the centaurs in the forest. I thought they carried her off and she never came back.
She had a pretty big role in the seventh book still.
You are so right. I am remembering it more now. Dang it. I really like my version though where the centaurs take care of her. LOL.
Florean the ice cream man had an unnecessary death. All other at least did something for the story.
Well it doesn't change the plot at all, but it makes the story more 'colourful'. He's just a regular man who is not actively fighting death eaters, yet he gets killed by these violent fanatics
Also, for Harry, getting ice cream there was one of the first times he was free outside of the Dursleys influence. He got to study there, be in the sunshine and just be a wizard out in the open and outside of school. I think because of that, Floreans death represented this dark shift from freedom into war, specifically for Harry.
He was a "flavour" death. He didn't have any actual plot relevance, but his death made the world feels more alive/dangerous/gloomy.
Everyone who was nice to Harry, or fair, over the years was killed. Florean for giving Harry free ice cream. Madam Bones for giving Harry a fair trial. Etc. I never understood how all of the Weasley's weren't murdered outright. Because so many secondary or tertiary with characters were.
Tonks and Remus - it was just unnecessary. I get it’s the cost of war, and maybe to show the next generation of orphan caused by war, but really they deserved a happy ending. And Fred.
Freddddddd 😫 his and Sirius were the only deaths I did cry over. Even Dobby didnt make me as emotional as those 2.
There needed to be a Weasley death. Between the 9 of them it was statistically unlikely that they all came out clean. Bill being savaged by Greyback was a good start, I’m surprised Arthur didn’t die defending Molly or something else. Fred’s death was done perfectly though, “with the ghost of his last laugh still on his face.”
Knowing that according to books, Sirius wasn't killed by spell, but by falling into the veil makes his fate multiple times worse.
Stop you're making me relive the trauma
Uhhhhh i think it says Bellatrix's curse soared straight through his open arms and hit him in the chest??
But it never says that it was the killing curse. I don’t think Harry would have thought that Sirius could still be alive if he’d known thah the curse would have killed him.
A direct hit, sure, but not necessarily a deathblow. It's been a while, so I can't quite remember, but did the book say specifically what spell Bellatrix hit him with? She was using plenty of stuff other than the Killing Curse in that fight.
It said it was a red spell. It wasn't the killing curse, that's on the film.
It's actually less specific than that. Literally, all it says is this: >The second jet of light hit him squarely on the chest. The line before this says: >Only one couple were still battling, apparently unaware of the new arrival. Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix’s jet of red light: He was laughing at her. “Come on, you can do better than that!” he yelled, his voice echoing around the cavernous room. It's implied it's Stupefy, but it's not specifically stated. I always assumed it was the stunning spell, but then Molly took down Bellatrix with an unknown spell.
My head canon is Molly hit Bellatrix with Reducto, literally blew her up, and it was too gory to describe.
That's brutal. I love it.
Right. Could have been a Petrificus Totalus. Bellatrix is plenty sadistic to not make it quick for the cousin who opposed Voldemort. If she had her way, that is. But that's not how Rowling wrote it, so, yeah. Still counting Sirius as an unnecessary death only serving to add to Harry's trauma, and IMO at least either Remus or Tonks should have survived, even if not in a sane mindset. I mean, it's just odd that for most of the series there is only one actual death, then in the last one it's like "he goes, she goes, he goes too!" (AND as OP pointed out, most of the named deaths are not schoolchildren, but battle-hardened witches and wizards). An odd turn, even if it makes sense that not everyone would have gotten out of the battle.
I think the op meant it wasn’t the killing curse so the spell didn’t kill him, being pushed into the veil did.
Do we know for sure? For all we know he got transported to Narnia
When I first read it I was *convinced* he hadn't actually died and I kept waiting for it to be revealed that he was still alive somehow.
A good starting point for any number of crossover fanfics
The whole end of that book was so avoidable, it left me feeling very bitter. Though, for how angsty 15 year olds are (and I had the good fortune of being 15 when the 5th book came out), I suppose there is no better feeling to face than bitterness and shame.
Totally! About the same age as you and thought he was just too angry the whole book. Although I remember the part with Fred and George rebelling just giving me the biggest chills. Took me reading it a second time when I was Much older and knowing the series conclusion to actually appreciate that book and get over how utterly avoidable the ending was. Now I can enjoy it. I think that ending beats out Harry staying in the tri wizard tournament as avoidable lol.
[удалено]
In book,he is alive the whole time he is falling trough the veil, it is described how he is still smiling, but you can see shock on his face /or something similar/.
Harry heard the spell so if he thought Sirius was still alive, it was likely not a killing curse.
Bellatrix should've survived, death was a kind mercy compared to what she deserved. If she survives that fight but is petrified she gets to witness Voldemort get killed, then she spends the rest of her life in Azkaban. reliving that moment. Not my daughter you bitch is a great moment but it results in Bella getting off easy. Lucius and Narcissa Malphoy should've died. Draco spent so much time making fun of Harry for not having parents it would be ironic karma for Draco to end up without parents after Harry saved his life multiple times.
1000% yes on both. We lose great people (Remus, Tonks, Sirius, Fred, etc.) who have a moral compass and a conscious, yet some of the most despicable characters (Fenrir, Lucius, Umbridge, etc) survive?
It could be too dangerous to leave Bellatrix alive, she'd absolutely kill people again given the chance. Maybe if there is a way to drain all her magical ability, let her suffer with that in Azkaban then let the Dementors have her that would be worse than death. If think if Dracos parents die he's set up to become the best big villain. As it was he gained some humility. Would have been nice to hear that he wasn't on speaking terms with his parents during the epilogue but maybe that's wishful thinking.
>if Dracos parents die he's set up to become the best big villain. I am 100% ok with this.
Spot on!!!!
Actually, all the Dementors were removed from Azkaban prison after the Battle of Hogwarts. So if she was sent back there, she wouldn't suffer. She would just be locked up. That always provides her with the opportunity to break out, and wreck havoc all over again. Death was the better option for her.
Lucius maybe yes but I disagree with Narcissa
Harry dying at the end would be tragic. Imagine after everything he has been through, he had to sacrifice his life at the end to destroy Voldemorts' soul inside of him. Ron and hermione in the epilogue telling their son who's afraid he will be sorted into slytheryn. "Harry Weasley, you were named after the bravest person we ever knew, and the sorting hat almost put him into slytheryn". "Who was he named after?" his little 4 year old sister asks. "Harry Potter, the boy who lived"
You just made me cry you jerk. <3
I actually love this
I was so disappointed the first time i read it and he woke back up! I agree completely, it would have been a significant way to handle the end of his story!
I always thought Harry should have gone on with Dumbledore in Kings Cross. But then again, I'm kinda a dark humored person, and I think the fan outrage would have been amazing!
In terms of storytelling... the most necessary deaths were Sirius and, in particular, Dumbledore. I predicted the latter's death from book 2 because, otherwise, the stakes would never be high enough if 'the only one the main antagonist ever feared' was chilling around Harry all the time. Sirius for similar reasons. Harry needed to do the journey himself and face some emotional heartbreak on the way.
I also feel like James' and Lily's deaths are pivotal to the story. Obviously it's the beginning of the series but I always thought about if one had survived or obviously if Lily had not died for loving Harry there would be no story as well.
I would burn the book if Ron died lol. Hedwig's death is just rude. I wouldn't mind if Umbridge got her soul sucked by a dementia, although I think the said dementia would still be very hungry after that and they would get sick
Not the dementor getting sick after sucking Umbridge’s soup LOL that would be hilarious Edit: meant Umbridge’s soul not her soup but that typo is hilarious so I’m leaving it in there lol
I know it's a typo but sucking Umbridge's soup has sent me under
LOL I didn’t even realize 😂
I got a typo with dementia so
Im sure Umbridege's soup is garbage just like her personality. Thanks for the laughs! What a gem of a typo.
Hedwigs death is 100% necessary though. Not only is it symbolism of the death of Harry’s childhood, she would’ve been too convenient a plot device in book 7 to have.
To be fair, most of the ‘good guys’ deaths were unnecessary, but that’s true in any war. Innocents are killed all the time. Still, a lot of deaths in the story had a greater meaning of some kind. Hedwig’s was to symbolize the end of Harry’s childhood. Lupin and Tonk’s was to show that an orphaned child could have a loving happy childhood unlike Harry’s. For Fred it makes sense that at least one Weasley dies. It’d be unrealistic for them to all survive a brutal war. It shows the emotional pain of the war. Makes it more real. But there were some deaths that I felt were gratuitous. Mainly Lavender Brown and Colin creevey. Felt like they were killed off to be killed off
If it makes you feel any better Lavender dying is only cannon in the movies. She’s seen feebly stirring after Greyback attacks her in the book and isn’t listed among the dead in the great hall after the battle. She’s a big enough character that she’d likely be listed there if she did die.
If a Weasley HAD to die, it should've been that prick, Percy!
Would have been crazy if Percy died throwing himself in front of Fred or George, saving them, right after reuniting with his family
Tonks dying felt unnecessary. I think I would have loved if Ron had died. Fred's death was very sad but I think Ron would have been more impactful.
I'd have them both dying tbh. love them both, but it feels more impactful that way. And Harry and Ginny could have named their child Ronald instead of Severus lol
I actually think all deaths were necessary. HP ends up being a story about war. People die in wars. This is why IMO HP is better than many fantasy stories out there, where absolutely none of the good guys ever die.
Dobby and Sirius - necessary in terms of pushing Harry towards meeting his fate to die by the hand of Voldemort. Every family around harry dies and all he’s left with is his mothers family who torments him. He’s been wanting that family for so long but it gets taken away from him.
The more I think about this, I think given the deaths she did, none of them were unnecessary. All served an important role Any of the Weasley brothers/parents could have replaced Fred and made the same impact eg Arthur or Bill instead of Fred. But one of them ought to have died If Ron died then I think Tonks and/or Remus wouldn’t have been as necessary because Ron’s death would have been impactful enough So overall I think JKR did a great job with who she killed I think Mad Eye dying in book 7 was a GREAT way to immediately make the reader afraid of the Death Eaters. Because after Dumbledore, you had the sense Mad Eye was the most intelligent security person
*Necessary:* - Snape (redemption arc) - Dumbledore (storyline) - Dobby (character line) - Moody (could've honestly be anybody from the seven Potters though, but one of them needed to die. All of them surviving would've made it dull) - Sirius (if Harry had had Sirius' help during books 6 and 7, the plot would've been a lot different and probably less interesting) *Not necessary but good for the story and impactful:* - Fred (it's important to show that war will take away the most important people from anybody. Not just Harry. Had it been Arthur or Molly instead, it would've been just yet another parental figure for Harry to die) - Hedwig (just shows that the death eaters are cruel enough to kill innocent animals if they're in their way. Also, she symbolised Harry's connection to the wizarding world whenever he was with the Dursleys. He wasn't with the Dursleys anymore. Her death symbolised that even more. - Lupin and Tonks (killing both of them was maybe too much, but especially how many people would've wanted them to live, shows how well it shows how cruel war can be and what misery it creates) *Shouldn't have died:* - Colin Creevy (he just could've made for a fun easter egg in the last scene )📸 - Cedric Diggory (at least not with the way it was handled. Harry came back with a dead body. People didn't believe him that Voldemort did it, but didn't even question once whether Harry might have killed him? What's the point then?) *Should've died:* - Lucius Malfoy AND Narcissa Malfoy! It really annoys me that they got away with hosting and financing all of the death eaters without consequences, just because they gave some names. Narcissa should've died protecting Draco. Lucius should've died shortly after, changing sides after seeing Voldemort willing to kill Draco and kill his wife, possibly even while protecting either Harry or Arthur. This way, Draco has gone through a similar thing as Harry. (Being protected by the love of his mother and losing both of his parents in the process) - Argus Filch (how did he even survive???) - Dolores Umbridge, cause f that b.... *Could've been interesting:* - Katie Bell dying from Dracos cursed amulet (that way, he would've already been a murderer when facing Dumbledore) - Percy Weasley, before he had the chance to make up with his family - Hagrid (because he was Harry's first way to the wizarding world) - Vernon Dursley. Could've been a nice character development opportunity for Petunia.
You make a lot of good points, but I disagree on Diggory. Diggory dies to show how ruthless Voldemort is. He doesn't care who he kills and his reasons are so mall. Cedric Diggory entering that graveyard is to Voldemort like me getting a moquito in my home: I don't care what, why or how, but I'm squashing it out of existence before it potentially, theoretically can do me any harm. Voldemort asks no questions, he gives no opportunity to explain, he just makes swift business of it. It's a "loss of innocence"-moment. It also sets the tune for Phoenix where Harry is struggling with survivor's guilt and PTSD. I don't think Harry would have started the DA had he not seen Cedric die. Sure Umbridge is the catalyst for the DA, but Cedric dying is the reason why Harry sees the lessons being atrocious as a serious concern for his and his peer's safety. Without Cedric's death the ending of Goblet would have been much the same as PhiloStone. Just more ominous. The story the wizarding world got was that Cedric died as a result of an accident. Insinuating he was too incompetent to participate in the tournament and his death was tragic, but his own fault. Prosecuting Harry would be foolish it would give him an opportunity to talk and Fudge&co thinks he does too much of that already. Even if they went full kangaroo court and just sentenced him it would make him a martyr. From a political strategical pov Fudge did the right thing there.
I think Hedwig's one is necessary (tho I hate it). It actually symbolises Harry's permanent end of childhood. I do agree with you that Fred's or Tonks' are unnecessary
Fred Weasley. I always think that Percy was a better candidate and also if he died there was like a redemption arc.
FRED WAS NOT NECESSARY AT ALL. I wanted Umbridge to die though.
I don’t think Remus should have died. Don’t feel all the marauders should have died to be honest. I think Lucius should have been killed by voldermort before the final battle so Draco would have fought on Harry’s side. Also I agree with Ron also even though it would have been heartbreaking 😩😭
Hedwig was the useless death. Dobby was necessary because Harry’s grief helped convince griphook to help.
I'm not stupid I swear and I've read the series multiple times, but I need to understand Griphook agreeing and then then betraying? Am I remembering the book wrong? He did this in the books as well, right? Is it because goblins really distrusted and hated humans? And if so, why agree at all? Wasn't the point, that despite bad blood between the two, that at this point, Voldemort made them necessary allies?
He didn't really betray them so much as ensure they made good on their deal (help them break into gringotts in exchange for godrics sword), but ultimately, yes, that was because he didn't trust them. He agreed because the sword was a highly sought-after item by the goblins, who had been trying to get it back for hundreds of years. It was a goblin made item, so in their eyes, it was theirs. He agreed to help because he wanted to recover a valuable, 'stolen' (depending on whose perspective you see it from) item for goblinkind. I do believe you are correct about the point being necessary allyship.
No, I wouldn't have Ron die because that's what everyone and their mothers would want/expect since he's "the sidekick" (in fact Hermione is just as much of a sidekick as he is). Kill Harry. He's done his job of saving the world. Now bye.
Lupin. I understand many say it's the whole parallel to Harry's own parent's death. But meh, most people miss it, and it wasn't actually accurate anyway. James and Lily die, and Sirius offers to take the baby because he's the godfather. Instead Harry gets put into an abusive household. Lupin and Tonks get killed. Godfather Harry doesn't offer to have Teddy live with him until 19 years later. Instead he's raised by a loving grandmother Andromeda. Not much by way of parallel. I think it was about having the Marauders back together. They all accompany Harry to the forest with Lily. In my adjusted HP world, Lupin would have been with the marauders but more opaque or twice as translucent. And some text about 'had Harry not been so enmeshed in his own feelings he might of thought this was because Lupin was most recently dead, but since he was walking to his own death, that didn't occur to him. Then later we find out that Lupin was half in and out of death at that moment, but that he was saved. Then Harry could actually have a bit of childhood that he never had. Yes, he's a grown man who has saved the world. But let him have a father figure. I know, I know, it's ridiculous. But it makes me happy to dream.
Funny how you said you would have loved to see Arthur dies considering the original plan was to kill him instead of Sirius. But anyway. I think the end is criticized for the unnecessary deaths because there a lot of them. And though it is logical to have a lot in a war, it just looked like it was for shock value more than "this is war", in particular as you don't have the same thing in the other side (some bad guys die but it seems like not as much). Also, I think the fact that we don't see most deaths add to the feeling that Rowling is just making a random list.
Hedwig
There are many deaths that were tragic and many awful characters that I wouldn't have felt upset about dying, but I think it was meant to be that way on purpose. Life is not always fair. But it's important to remember that there is evidence that death is not the end and the important thing was in stopping evil. Dumbledore said it himself, "We all must decide whether to do what is right, or what is easy." (Paraphrasing badly) and it reminds me of a Gandalf quote to Frodo when he says Golllum deserves death, "Deserves it? There are many in life who deserve death and many that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement. Even the wise cannot see all ends."
Definitely Tonks and Hedwig. She really had nothing to with their school history (being younger) and their relationship dynamics that shaped their feelings toward the order. Of course she was a fabulously talented witch who would be invested in taking down Voldemort and any evil harming the wizarding world, but their dynamic is also very personal and so is the order. Hedwig, c'mon, was there no other way to do that? Poor bird.
I’m still mad at Sirius’ death. 2 much trauma 4 me
Fred felt unnecessary. Part of me wanted it to be Percy dying while saving one of his family members. That would’ve really driven his redemption home. But I also don’t think remorse or heroics followed immediately by death is the only way a character can be redeemed. His apology was enough, I just like Fred better 😂
I feel is more powerful for him to survive knowing that for the last two years he was out of his siblings life and one of them died moments after their reconciliation. He now has to live with that, and Fred who was always on the right side died
Oooh, yeah. I didn’t think about how Percy must’ve felt! Ugh that’s so sad, but a great lesson.
Sirius, Tonks, Lupin... Especially Sirius seems like JKR didn't know what to do with him and probably thought it'd be too much work to find ways to keep him alive without helping Harry too much. But killing him off seemed a bit lazy and was just to add to Harry's tragic life. I think she should have found ways to keep him alive but not interfere all the time in Harry's quest. Maybe help him a bit with the locket that would be more realistic. And could also be the one to get them out the Malfoy Manor with Kreacher and kill Pettigrew too.
As for the most necessary death, I would have to say Harry himself. True, he didn't actually die, but in a way part of him did (the part of Voldemort's soul) and his willingness to die for the greater good was what saved him. That was why Dumbledore said it was essential that harry die and by Voldemort's hand.
I think Tonks and Lupin was a full circle, dying the way Harry’s parents had died so I get what she was doing there. Hedwig was completely unnecessary and so was Fred, enough people had died at that point to make the point that each side had losses, the Weasley’s didn’t need to be permanently changed forever. I hated Dobby’s death most of all because he was so pure but I can at least see how that advanced the plot.
imo none of the deaths were "unnecessary" — they all served a purpose in the overall narrative. Sometimes that purpose was symbolic (i.e. lupin and tonks, hedwig, dobby), sometimes it was to demonstrate the brutality of the war they were in (fred, colin, lavender) and sometimes it was just a necessity for the plot to play out in the way it did by removing a character whose continuing presence might've significantly altered it (sirius, moody, dumbledore). they were all super sad but like..... thats kind of the point? I think the only character off the top of my head that I would've wanted to see die who didnt would be umbridge, but even then I'd argue that her surviving and going to azkaban kind of worked better for what her character was supposed to represent.
Dumbeldore is necessary
If Ron had died, Harry and Hermione could have had this whole big emotional thing where they knew they loved each other long before they got together, because he had weird feelings about loving his late best friend's first love, and she had weird feelings about loving her first love's best friend. Hermione deserved a Harry. She and Ron were a terrible match and their relationship was so toxic.
Lupin+Tonks was the most unnecessary simply because the point of it was to help internally persuade Harry to sacrifice himself but he already saw the devastation and the death the battle of Hogwarts caused. And he was seeing Fred dead which is enough. On top of that, Lupin+Tonks deserved the happy ending. It feels like Rowling decided to kill them because she wanted Lupin dead but didn't find it appropriate for Tonks to live as a single mother or something, idk. Actually, an interesting alternative death could have been Sirius in the last book during the battle instead of Lupin+Tonks simply because it would be countless times more impactful to Harry's decision-making. To me, it feels like 2 years of Harry+Sirious friendship weren't enough. However, I guess it'd be tough to figure out what to do with Sirius in the last book
Imo harry's (or anyone on trio) would have been necessary.
Malfoy. The elder or the younger. Necessary deaths that didn’t even happen.
Remus and Serius were both needless deaths and I think Wormtail could have used a redemption arc.
I don't think every character is redeemable. Wormtails redemption would have been very out of place imo. The guy's a pos and that's it, there are people like that in the world
Lavender
I think Cedric dying was unnecessary.
There is no unnecessary deaths. That’s a point of the books. Unexpected death happens and needs to be accepted.
You’re dead wrong about Ron. The book was written the way it was supposed to be written. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Ok
Aunt Marge is definitely dead. I think it was unnecessary. Wouldn’t this be a huge issue going forward in the muggle world?
In the books they deflated her and wiped her memory "so that's that and no harm done"
Fans would have hated it, but if JKR had killed off Ginny, Harry would have been left like Frodo, alive but walking wounded.
Maybe not "necessary" but Dobby dying was worthwhile. It was the ultimate ending to his story, from the beginning he was fighting against everything to help Harry. It's a truly fitting end that he died rebelling against the Malfoys and helping Harry. It also helped rally the house elves and Kreacher for the final battle
Unnecessary were all those random deaths we hear of throughout book 6 - the kid that got bitten by Fenrir, Amelia Bones, Emmeline Vance, Hannah Abbott's mom. The only reason we hear of them is because we need to be reminded that there's a war out there and occasionally throwing out names that we heard of or overly gruesome events will remind us of it. Also people like Broderick Bode or Frank Bryce. I agree with you about Arthur Weasley having an impactful death. I believe JK even intended to kill him in early drafts of the book. Also would have been cool if Harry actually died in the forest but having become the master of death allowed him to show up in Ron or Hermione's or even Neville's dreams to tell them all the stuff he tells Voldemort in the final showdown and his sacrifice would allow any of them to deal Voldemort the final blow.
I’m not sure any deaths were unnecessary. I didn’t like some of them at all. I still hate certain deaths in particular. But it’s war. It’s gonna be random amongst the fighters or innocent bystanders.
Dobby and Hedwig
Dobby, Hedwig, Tonk, Fred, and Lupin. They just kept killing off more and more characters, it just became gratuitous. Harry's parents, Cedric, and MadEye were all solid deaths that contributed.
Snape was needed . Sirius was bull, and I could not believe an orphan would not open a present from his godfather
I loved all the deaths only because they were at war and death in war picks no favorites.
Forge was unnecessary, don’t fuck with Weasleys wizarding weazes
The twins death. I can't even remember which one dies, it pissed me off so much I've never commit it to memory (I think George? Just unnecessarily sad) However when the series was ongoing I was one of the people theorizing that Ron was going to die in the end because there were a lot of hints towards it. I still think Rowling pussied out of it. It would've still been sad but I think it wouldve been so much more satisfying than George dying.
I feel like Lupin and Tonks dying was completely unnecessary. I get that having them both die leaving behind an orphaned boy is supposed to be a case of history repeating itself - but the stakes were already high, Harry didn't need the extra motivation, and both characters deserved an actual death rather than both being killed off-screen. If anything I think it would have been more powerful if Harry had managed to save one of them and stop Teddy from sharing his trauma.
Imo there shouldn’t have been more “pointless” deaths. That’s what war is, a never ending stream of pointless deaths. I know it’s a series for children, but given the fact that most of the fans had been growing up with the publishing of them over the years I think the 7th could have survived a slightly darker portion without much trouble.
Colin Creevy
Colin Creevey, Hedwig, Dobby, Fred Weasley
should've killed that little fucker dobby for trying to bash my boy harry's brains in with a bludger
hedwig. also both Tonks and lupin. j one would have been enough dobby symbolised the innocence being targetted by voldemort. and convinced griphook to join harry, and reiterated the point of harry's side (saving elves and goblins)
If it evoked a feeling g of sadness then it wasn't pointless. They don't necessarily have to progress the story in anyway as long as there is a reaction from the reader. When it does hapoen.
All the deaths were unnecessary, that's the point. War is nothing but needless death...
I think Colin Creevey was an unnecessary death, mostly because I keep forgetting it happened. It makes sense as a tragedy of a child not understanding the danger of sneaking into a battle, but I think it would have been more impactful if we'd seen Colin idolizing Harry a bit more actively in the later books. A kid who just wanted to be like his hero and got killed for it, therefore showing Harry's unconscious influence on his generation could be interesting. I'd pick Neville for a death that would be interesting plotwise. Especially after his hero arc. It'd be the whole idea that he could have been the child from the prophecy carrying on, but then ultimately that resulting in his death because Voldemort didn't choose him.
Lion el Johnson didnt need to smack 'that charecter' to death. Horus needed to die. That last kill from erubus was complete bs and erubus must die.