2007-08-19 17:05:56 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
She didn't want to.
2007-08-19 17:13:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because then Voldemort would have risen to power. It was part of the prophecy first talked about in the fifth book. One couldn't die while the other lived. And it seems like it would have been too much for the audience, and probably her, to go through seven books where she and the characters work hard to overcome such a villian just to be destroyed. Harry is the main character, and a hero in a sense, and to make it a happy ending, the hero has to win.
Also, she has had the epilogue of the last book written for some time now, hidden away in her home, so she knew from the beginning what the series was going to end as, unless she changed it along the way.
2007-08-19 17:16:13 · answer #2 · answered by Ell 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
She wanted to kill him off. I think ultimately, she knew that the whole good triumphing over evil was a main point in the book, and that love being the best magic.
Also, I think she worked out what kind of effect it would have on millions of people. I know that the day before the 7th book came out, Childline released a statement saying that they were to employ more people for their call centres, as they thought that Harry dying would have a huge negative effect on people.
To be fair, I am 25 years old, read load of books and have an imagination beyond what most people have. Harry didn't die, but I still feel depressed and suffocated for a few days after reading the book.
This week, I re-read all 7 books and started and finished the last one on Saturday. I would have been a mess if he died...
2007-08-19 23:38:03 · answer #3 · answered by The Ideal Muggle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, who knows? Only J.K. Rowling herself, I guess. In my opinion she didn't kill Harry because the main audience of this books are children so the moral must be clear - good people always win.
2007-08-20 05:20:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because it leaves the continuing storyline open for another book a couple of years down the line, even though she has said its the last one. Can you imagine Harry Potter as a full grown man, a family guy and a top Wizard? I can...
2007-08-19 17:19:44 · answer #5 · answered by djmonsta200883 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Harry was literally JK's first child. Would any sane mother kill off their own child? She spent 17 years of her life, dedicated to Harry and his purpose for being. Why write these books if she had any intention of killing him off?
2007-08-19 23:30:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think she has an idea of writing another novel of Harry Potter in future.
2007-08-19 18:25:10 · answer #7 · answered by AHAMED K 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She has always maintained that she wrote the last chapter 17 years ago - so she always knew that Harry wouldn't die - why would she change it.
I got the feeling that his resurrection was a Christian analogy, so she couldn't really kill him off could she.
2007-08-20 10:38:28 · answer #8 · answered by broomstone 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, she did but she didn't. Because Harry was Voldemort's unintentional seventh horcrux (and the horcrux Voldemort knew absolutely nothing about) he had to die in order for Voldemort to die. So Harry sacrificed himself, letting Voldemort kill him and in doing so destroying him as a horcrux.
However, because Voldemort had taken his blood in order to regain physical form, he became akin to a horcrux for Harry. That isn't to say that Harry's soul was damaged when Voldemort took some of his blood. Rather, his blood in Voldemort acted as an anchor for Harry. Unlike a regular horcrux, however, Harry actually had a choice once he died and entered a near death state (Harry was on the line between life and the spirit world). He could choose to return to life and face Voldemort or to die completely, thus passing over into the spirit realm. Had a heart monitor been hooked up to him, he would have flatl ined for a second. But he did return to face Voldemort.
Harry's blood in Voldemort would serve as no means for Voldemort to escape death. Though he used it to regain physical form and thus it was a part of him, it was more link to the mortal realm for Harry himself. Voldemort needed something of himself from birth to be a link, that something was his soul.
2007-08-19 17:51:11 · answer #9 · answered by knight1192a 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She did not kill him because then the sales on movies and books including other items would go down if people knew that harry was going to die. In their opinion theres no point in reading or watching harry potter stuff because you know that hes going to die. J.K Rowling would have lower profits.
2007-08-19 17:11:09 · answer #10 · answered by Victoria 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
well, too clarify, he DOES die... anyways, she didn't kill him permanantly because it wouldn't' have been as good of a story if he had. one of the overriding themes of the entire series is that of innocence and goodness and love overcoming evil. yes, this could have been accomplished with Harry's death, but the would make love's victory over evil incomplete and unsteady. besides, it would be tacky and cliche to kill Harry... you might as well kill Luke Skywalker or Frodo Baggins.
2007-08-19 17:14:05 · answer #11 · answered by f0876and1_2 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋