Don't kill Harry Potter?

[jmc_bks]

I just read this news blurb about how John Irving and Stephen King urge J.K. Rowling not to kill Harry Potter in this last book of the series. WTF? Who the hell are they to tell her what to do with her characters? Yes, there are a lot of readers who'll be horrified and heart broken if he dies, but he is her character, her brain-child to do with as she will. If I were her, I'd be p.o.'d that these people were telling me what to do with him. Especially since they've both killed off characters in their work.

Comments

Kill Harry

[(Anonymous)]

I'm fine with it either way, honestly. I'm prepared for the worst. I think it is somewhat forward to make a plea to not kill off another author's character, especially since you've done it yourself. That was interesting with the Dog re Stephen King. I don't own pets, don't want to and I still struggle over the fact that most people would spend a lot of money on their pets. I get prescriptions for dogs, cats, for almost anything, everyday. Treat them for cholesterol, asthma and anxiety.

Re: Kill Harry

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

Your language is so much more graceful than mine -- it is forward. I'm okay with either outcome, although I lean toward thinking that Rowling will kill him.

I struggle with the pet dilemma. As much as I love my cat (I admit it, although I have a vague fear of someday becoming a Crazy Cat Lady), I have a limit on what I'm willing to spend on her. (The cat sitter and vet know this, too, in case of emergency while I'm out of town.) Shots, regular vet visits are okay. Dialysis, open heart surgery, cancer treatment? No. I can't afford that, and frankly, it seems cruel to me. Having watched a friend's dog go through chemo and suffer hugely, I don't think I could bear it. Heartless? Maybe.

Re: Kill Harry

[(Anonymous)]

Not heartless, merciful! Sometimes I think we treat the demise of our pets better than we do ourselves. At least we can let them leave their suffering behind - oops, that might be too political so just ignore me ;)

I haven't read any of the books because I don't read YA books but now I'm waiting for the end of the series. All the same, I think I would be pretty upset if I read a series, got attached to the hero/heroine and then had them die in the end.

Still, I think she handled it well when Irving and King said they'd like to see Harry make it. She said she was just preparing her readers to read the likes of Irving and King in the future. Well played.

CindyS

Re: Kill Harry

[jmc-bks.livejournal.com]

She was gracious about their comments, I agree. And if she's okay with other professional writers putting her on the spot that way, then I should be too. But it bothered me – it seemed inappropriate for Irving and King to comment in a public setting and to more or less force her to respond. If the position was reversed, would they appreciate being lobbied or harangued, however gently, about the outcome of their work? I doubt it.

Or maybe I'm just being a raving b*tch right now and looking for something to complain about.

Re: Kill Harry

[(Anonymous)]

No actually, I didn't think of it that way. If she didn't know it was coming then yeah, that would have been a bit of a hardball tactic. Also, I was wondering if it would have felt condescending to have these two men tell you that you shouldn't kill a major character. I wonder what they would have said if she were a man? Same advice?

Also, I know King isn't hurting financially and I don't know about Irving but I don't think either of them have earned what Rowling has so you wonder about jealousy.

Okay, now I'm over thinking this!

CindyS