...for requesting that JK Rowling not have Harry Potter die in book 7?
Several of his books have ended with the necessary death of the protagonist, including The Dead Zone, The Stand, and Tommyknockers.
If the story dictates that Harry must die, then I'll accept it. He's not a real person, you know?
2006-08-02 05:19:55 · 15 answers · asked by Steven S 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Horror and fanasy are too totally diffent types of books in fanasy the hero is not supposed to die
2006-08-03 09:00:37 · answer #1 · answered by Jeremy© ® ™ 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, I feel that the very obvious answer to this question is that Stephen King is not J.K. Rowling. He may have felt that the deaths of his characters in his books were necessary to the plot and thrust of his book, and is simply voicing his opinion as an author to Rowling. Isn't nice to think that authors are reading each others' books?
He may not wish Harry Potter to die, but as writers well know, it may not actually be their choice. Many of my characters have done phenomenally stupid things that I would have never "made" them do, but if I stifle what the characters are telling me about themselves, then the story sounds flat. I know this sounds a little bit "voices in my head" -ish, but anyone who has written a good long while will understand what I'm talking about. Perhaps Rowling feels that if Harry Potter meets his end in the last book, then that was perhaps the wish of the character, and it's hard to control that.
So no, I don't feel that King is a hypocrite at all. What is one author's product is another author's delight.
2006-08-02 13:49:59 · answer #2 · answered by bibliophile_1976 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude you gotta lot of balls calling SK a hyppocrite... It doesn't matter if some of his protangonist die at the end of his story... what really matters is the story itself. Harry potter is such a positive and influential character that it would truly be a shame if he died, he supposedly the most famous living warlock of them all... and its apparent that his destiny will be great, it makes absolutely no sense WHAT-SO-EVER if he were to jsimply die at the end. I am not too familar with HP and the story line thus far...(i've only watched the movies... too busy reading REAL books) But from my understanding he has a powerful lineage from his father. His past involving abusive parenting methods and the mysteries invovling Hogwarts are perfect foundation for an awesome story of overcoming obstackles and doing great things to one day become a legend... This is the making of a great story... possibly on the same level of SK's The Dark Tower series and Tolken's The Lord of the Rings (which is much more extensive than the movie) It would be a very stupid idea if she finished the series with Harry's Death, very stupid indeed....
2006-08-02 12:33:01 · answer #3 · answered by Dante 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So far it hasn't been proven necessary for Harry to die. Her reasoning is that she doesn't want someone else to pick it up later. Well, that's not a good enough reason. In the Dead Zone, Johnny was dying anyway. In The Stand, it was a sacrifice, so therefore, necessary. I can't see where it's necessary for Harry to die yet..... But no Stephen King is not a hypocrite for trying to keep a very popular fiction character alive. Also for the other answerer, SK's kids are adults. I think his youngest is about 30ish.....I don't think they are going to be suicidal if Harry dies...
2006-08-02 12:25:17 · answer #4 · answered by Jessie P 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think he is a hypocrite so much as just a fan. What true fan really wants to see the main character of such a good series die? I too will accept it if it does happen that way and I can also understand why should would kill Harry in number seven, because if she doesn't there will so much pressure put on her to keep writing more :)
2006-08-02 12:26:25 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe its quite pathetic to see a well reknown author stoop to the level of JK ROwling - yes fine she has gotten people who do not read normally to read - but I believe its tripe!
Who really cares if he lives or dies, beacuse as you say, hes only a chartacter in a book - we read to be entertained - so hopefully JK will conjure up an appropiate death for poor Harry...during the first few pages...
2006-08-02 12:29:47 · answer #6 · answered by psyconia 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Stephen King is not a hypocrite. His stories are different from Rowlings, you can't compare them. He was just voicing an opinion that many fans share.
2006-08-02 12:24:33 · answer #7 · answered by Lauren 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I do not think that he is a hypocrite. You have to remember that Stephen Kings book are for Adults and not for children.
A lot of children may have a hard time with having their hero killed.
2006-08-02 12:25:27 · answer #8 · answered by rranderson1968 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see how it's hypocritical.
King has never had a cult series with a very popular character and killed him off against the wishes of his readers.
It's kings style to WRITE death into his stories. Doesn't mean he has to want death to the eggs in his morning breakfast.
2006-08-02 12:24:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stephen King's books are not marketed to children.
2006-08-02 12:24:53 · answer #10 · answered by tweetymay 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He may not be a hypocrite..but he sure pissed me off at the end of The Cell..there was no closure at all and I LIVED with that book for a week!!!!
2006-08-02 12:25:18 · answer #11 · answered by Kay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋