I love this article. Someone may die in the final installment … a major character … and who knows, it could be Harry. Rowling isn’t saying. But I do just love how whenever this woman opens her mouth, it’s an EVENT. For some reason I don’t find it obnoxious.
Details in the article that I found really interesting:
She says: “The last book is not finished. But I’m well into it now. I wrote the final chapter in something like 1990, so I’ve known exactly how the series is going to end,” she said.
Fascinating. You can tell when you read those books (well, for the most part – there are the meandering sections where I get bored as hell and it seems like Rowling is just marking time) – but in general, you can tell that Rowling knows what she’s doing. She’s setting stuff up because she knows where she’s going. I’ve always felt that. I know the chapters and the incidents that I would cut – but hey, I’m not Rowling. I just love the idea that she wrote the last chapter to this whole series 15 years ago.
I also love this: “The final chapter is hidden away, although it’s now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve. But I have to say two die that I didn’t intend to die,” she said. “A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here. They don’t target extras do they? They go for the main characters. Well, I do.”
She’s kind of awesome. No. They do not “target extras”.
And the piece closes with: “I don’t think I’m ever going to have anything like Harry again. You just get one like Harry.”
I don’t think these books are classics, like the Narnia books. I think they are a phenomenon. I don’t think they’re particularly well-written – although she does have her moments – but I do know this: I can’t put the books down once I start them. They are addictive. And that takes some serious story-telling skills, which Rowling has in spades.
And judging from this article – (and I guess THIS is why I love the piece so much): I really get the sense (unlike other literary phenomenons) that this is ALL ROWLING. Things get so over-marketed so immediately these days that it’s really quite disheartening – nothing even gets a chance to survive or not. Now these books are obviously marketed really well, it’s an entire business – but the books themselves, the writing of the books – is all Rowling. I still get the feeling that she sits alone in her room, and loses herself in her work – in the same way that she did when she was on the dole, scribbling the first book on napkins at the coffee shop. Listen to her wording: “two die that I didn’t intend to die” … I love that. She’s not completely in control of this book – it’s almost like IT is telling HER where she needs to go. Madeleine L’Engle talks a lot about characters in her own books who have surprised her, who have suddenly done things she found incomprehensible … and yet it took the book to the next level. But the magical thing is that; she is writing it!! Isn’t she just sitting there making stuff up? Yes, but then there is this little thing called inspiration. That’s why some writers talk about feeling like “vessels” or “channels”. It’s not a completely conscious artform – and I just really like that Rowling seems to be in that place. The book is leading HER. I feel like she hasn’t changed, even though now, apparently, she is richer than the Queen of England. In my opinion, the books have gotten better, not worse, as the series went along … She doesn’t seem to compromise. There’s a lot of pressure on her – publishers, the movie franchise, marketers … It’s gotta be intense. She has to come up with the goods. Many writers would cave under such a circumstance. Rowling seems to still know how to create that private space around herself – where she can write, and create. Because I thought the last 2 books were the best in the series. So obviously, she is not just trying to repeat herself. She’s not lazy.
I personally can’t freakin’ wait for the next book.
What strikes me about Rowling is that she seems (emphasis, there) to have internalized the classic hero story, complete with all the archetypes in place. Now, on some level, I would like to believe that she is some savant that is tapping into the collective unconscious, but she clearly (IMO) has done a bunch of reading, no? I don’t know much about her, and prefer not to, and yet I can’t help but marvel at her success.
Daniel – yeah, I agree. Her book taps into all that archetypal stuff. She knows she’s not re-inventing the wheel, but she’s certainly found a new and exciting way to tell the same story. I love her stuff.
Counting the days!!!
Part of me wishes we hadn’t been so quick to make them into movies.
In the time Alex got old enough to read them, four movies have been made. He is loathe to read the earlier books, because “I’ve seen the movie!” When I tell him (and TELL HIM AND TELL HIM) that there is SO MUCH more in the books than could ever be in a 2-hour movie (especially with PoA — AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGH, HATE!), it’s a hard sell.
Part of the phenomenon of Harry is that it got kids reading again; but will the younger generation keep reading for reading’s sake if we’re just going to shoot out a movie version a year later?
Lisa – yeah, it’s that whole thing of immediately capitalizing on ANYTHING that is successful – and coming out with movies, action figures, books, video games, yadda yadda – to just SUCK. IT. DRY.
I think her books hold up – but still. I’m amazed that she has been able to keep writing the books – and have them be as good as they are – with all that hoo-hah.
“They don’t target extras do they? They go for the main characters.”
Ms. Rowling clearly has never watched Star Trek. Shout out to the redshirts!
I’m not so worried about the movie-book thing. That is, if the movie is good or at least doesn’t suck. I have a friend with a youngin who saw the first two movies before reading the books, and it sparked her interest. She can now have that fine feeling of being able to expound on the relative superiority of the written word.
True – I had to approach the Lord of the Rings movies much the same way, with the thought that they are NOT the books, that they will be different. And as much as I think Jackson succeeded with the films, and with the wonderful work of the cast and crew (SIR Ian McKellen is the MAN), there are certain things about them that make me want to slap the guy. I enjoyed them, but RRRGGGGHHHHH.
As far as writing, I feel exactly like your description on this, Sheila. I’ve written about it on my blog – you’ve seen that one post, actually, but I’ve mentioned it besides. I always just try to tell the truth; the best parts of any story are when the characters are collaborating and not just taking orders.
My characters don’t want anything to do with me.
I am finding myself in deep deep denial about the possibility of Harry dying. Can’t happen, nuh uh nohow.
well, he could die… you know the way Sherlock Holmes and that guy from Dallas, Patrick someone, died….
Well, I can see a case for him dying, once Voldamort dies, in order to bring balance. Their power is in such excess of what others have (the fact that Harry is not yet able to fully use it is irelevant) that it would be too upsetting in the power structure of the world for one to survive the other. So Harry must die.
What would Harry ‘be’ post Voldy? There’s no way who could live a normal wizarding life; his life would be hell. On one hand people would continually expect him to perform miracles while at the same time they’d be fearful he was about to morph into the new Voldy. Nope, he dies.
Let’s face it, Harry’s a cracker with a cool scar. Besides, now that Hermione is budding into womanhood, Harry will go all limp wand.
I too love the fact that she has had the ending to the story planned out from the beginning. How exciting it must be to sit down and create her character’s path to the end. And I feel that Harry could die. If the series is going to end, it would be fitting.
Did you read that people think one of the reasons that Harry might die is that he can’t be brought back to books if Rowling dies? I forget what they call that…but essentially whoever is in charge of her estate could sell the character rights? Am I understanding this correctly?
Jen –
Yes, I’ve heard that too. Have other authors done this?
If that were the case, someone could do copyright law a great favor by killing the frakking Mouse….
jen — Remember that book “Scarlett” that came out several years ago purporting to be a “sequel” to Gone with the Wind? I can’t even remember the author’s name — Alexandra something — but I DID read it and rather wish I hadn’t.
Rowling’s got to be worried about something just like that, someone taking her precious, unique creation and cashing in on it. It’s parasitic, really, I think. Write your own damn phenonmenon! Don’t be a leech.
I love what Rowling says about evil, “A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil here.” True on many levels, isn’t it?
Um, “phenomenon,” Tracey. Jeez. I’m a Hillbily! ;-)
Wasn’t Phenonmenon one of the Greek kings that beseiged Troy?
Well, Conan Doyle “killed off” Holmes because (IIRC) he was tired of him, but then it turned out to be a fake death because too many people were clamoring for more stories….
Actually, there’s an idea flapping around in my head… in the LWW, Aslan died…as a Christ-figure…and came back to life. I wonder if Rowling could be making a play towards this. It would be an interesting move in the books – Harry “dies” while fighting Voldemort but is resurrected. On the other hand, I can see two reasons against that:
1. The point about “what would Harry do post-Voldemort”? is a good one. Would he become the wizard-equivalent of a celebrity on endless book and lecture tours? Ugh. If that happened – if he remains after vanquishing his foe – he’d probably have to move to a remote hut in the mountains and do something in obscurity for the rest of his life.
2. The whole Christ-image thing would go down badly, VERY badly with the same folks who would have HP banned because of its “Witchcraft.” Not that that should be an issue for Rowling, but it might seem too much like tweaking her enemies’ noses to kill and resurrect him. (Besides, Harry’s not really powerful enough or Christlike enough in my opinion for the plot twist to fit…)
I was talking to my bride about this last night, and she summed it up better than I did: Harry, the exceptional one, dies so that the ‘normal’ ones, Hermione and Ron, can live on.
Of course, we had some wine so we quickly descended into a “Harry Dies Like Carson In Team America” Parody…
Harry: Hermione, you’re an amazing woman, and a damned fine wizard, and I want Ron to spend the rest of his life with you.
Lisa: [caressing the wand] Oh Harry… Harry… [the Death Eater in the fountain suddenly pops up and fires his wand at Harry, fatally wounding him] Harry! [green bolts pass through him and he falls. Hermione shakes her head in disbelief] NOOO! [the wand falls from her hand. Ron and Neville fire away at the Death Eater, who falls back into the fountain. Hermione holds Harry on her lap as other Team Hogwarts members arrive to help] Harry!
Harry: …feel so… c-cold
Hermione: You have to hang on, Harry.
Harry: Sorry babe, looks like this was a one way ticket.
Hermione: No…
Harry: Hermione, you have to live on, find some new clothes for Ron, make little red haired babies and be happy! You deserve ih ih… [dies]
Hermione: [traumatized, laments] NOOO! NOOO! NOOOOOO!
[scene cuts to Draco Malfoy on stage on Broadway]
Draco: [singing] Every Muggles has AIDs!
My hunch is that Harry won’t die. In the battle with Voldemort, he’ll kill him but it will drain all of his own power. He will never get it back. But he will be given something great in return.
I think it’s entirely possible that it’s Ron who will die–sacrificing himself for his friend.