Rowling says Harry and Hermione should have gotten married.

[JLTucker]

But both your proposed ending and mine are unsuitable for children books IMO.

Perhaps, but did the series end as being a book for children? We have murder, souls being ripped apart, torture, reanimated corpses, etc. The series took a huge turn at the end of GoF. I'd argue that by OotP, it ceased to be a series for children.

[Eternal_Freedom]

But both your proposed ending and mine are unsuitable for children books IMO.

Perhaps, but did the series end as being a book for children? We have murder, souls being ripped apart, torture, reanimated corpses, etc. The series took a huge turn at the end of GoF. I'd argue that by OotP, it ceased to be a series for children.

Hell, I'd say as soon as she introduced Azkaban in all it's horror it went beyond a children's book.

[Tribble]

Well hey to each their own. For me the fact that he was willing to just stand there and die for his friends was more than enough. And if anybody deserved to take down Voldemort, it'd be Harry.

Here is how I might have changed it. The snake gets killed during the battle, so Harry is the last Horcrux. Harry chooses to sacrifice himself, like in the book. When Voldemort fires the Avada Kedavra, instead of falling into a coma Harry dies - but so does Voldemort. In my version, it turns out that while using Harry's blood made Voldemort able to hurt and kill Harry, it also bound their lives together. Since there were no Horcruxes left, when Harry died he took Voldemort with him. But unlike Voldemort, Harry's soul is whole and pure, and after all of his experiences he is completely unafraid to move on. After having his talk with Dumbledore, Harry boards the train with him and leaves, and the story ends.

[JLTucker]

I think it would have been brilliant to end it like this:

"Voldemort raised his wand. His head was still tilted to one side, like a curious child, wondering what would happen if he proceeded. harry looked back into the red eyes, and wanted it to happen now, quickly, while he could still stand, before he lost control, before he betrayed fear --

He saw the mouth move and a flash of green light."

That's the end of the book. The reader turns the page and there's nothing else to read.

[Thanas]

That kind of sucks. Cliffhangers are a bad way to resolve a story that has a definite arc.

[JLTucker]

That kind of sucks. Cliffhangers are a bad way to resolve a story that has a definite arc.

Is it a cliffhanger, though? Given what's established about the killing curse, he's dead. There's no other interpretation.

[Vendetta]

It would mean that the story is missing its denouement.

Denouement is an important part of dramatic structure, it's the establishment of the new status quo after the events of the story. Skipping it makes an unsatisfactory ending because the story isn't finished.

[LaCroix]

^this.

Basicall, if the book ends when Harry dies, and Voldy with him, we would be left in a limbo - would the death eaters continue to control the Ministry and supress the people? Would the people rise and throw them off? Woudl the Death Eaters still attack the school to retake it (or simply make a point)?
It'd be like Firefly being cancelled - only in a global scale. Millions would want to know how it continued, but be denied closure.

[Tribble]

Hmmmm.

Alright, I've got it! Instead of Voldemort luring Harry into his lair the woods, he challenges Harry to a one-on-one in the school grounds, in front of everybody. The snake was killed in the earlier battle, and after having a final verbal confrontation about death (where Voldemort is still clinging to the view that nothing is worse than death and Harry states that there are things worth dying for) Harry allows Voldemort to hit him with avada kedavra, killing them both. Harry has his chat with Dumbledore in limbo then boards the train and leaves.

The final couple of chapters could deal with the fallout. With Voldemort literally dead in front of everyone the death eaters scatter, save for the hard-core ones who in their rage go on the offensive. But being heavily outnumbered they are killed in a brief but intense battle. Then perhaps you could show the community retaking the Ministry and beginning to rebuild. The final scene is when all the politicians and surviving characters start clapping while they unveil the Batman - sorry, I mean the Harry Potter - statue in the main entrance to the ministry or something along those lines, to show how they appreciate him lol. Maybe have that several years later chapter to show some characters having kids and peace being restored etc etc, and it's revealed in a plot twist that Ginny had been pregnant with Harry's kid the whole time, and show that kid going to school (sorry, I just couldn't help myself on that one ). The End.

[JLTucker]

^this.

Basicall, if the book ends when Harry dies, and Voldy with him, we would be left in a limbo - would the death eaters continue to control the Ministry and supress the people? Would the people rise and throw them off? Woudl the Death Eaters still attack the school to retake it (or simply make a point)?
It'd be like Firefly being cancelled - only in a global scale. Millions would want to know how it continued, but be denied closure.

what is it with everyone wanting 100% closure on everything?

[Vendetta]

It's a cornerstone of dramatic structure as understood by everyone since humans started deliberately writing dramatic narrative?

A denouement isn't "100% closure on everything", that is you being facile, what it is is the establishment of the new status quo for the protagonists.

You cannot simply stop a story partway through and assume that this represents a satisfying conclusion, even where that stop coincides with the death of the hero, because the hero is not necessarily the only protagonist. The denouement does not have to cover every detail, the one in the original books is enough even if it's not very good because it was written early before Rowling matured as a writer.

[JLTucker]

Good points, Vendetta.

I actually have to take back what I said about Voldemort not having any supporters when Harry goes to King's Cross. I forgot that all of his death eaters are still alive, so Harry couldn't die then because the entire populace at Hogwarts would have been demolished. Though, you could make the case that Voldemort still would have continued his plan to offer everyone a chance to join him. They'd bek illed if they refused.

Dammit. Voldemort should have won.

[Darth Yan]

snake hitler should have won? really?

[JLTucker]

snake hitler should have won? really?

Yes. It would have been logical if not for the DEM that was "being a horcrux means you can't die when hit with an AK." Tripe.

[Darth Yan]

So after a decade and seven books just let the bad guy win? do you know how much of a middle finger that is?

[Tribble]

snake hitler should have won? really?

Yes. It would have been logical if not for the DEM that was "being a horcrux means you can't die when hit with an AK." Tripe.

Actually, there was more to it than just Harry being a Horcrux:

Voldemort did not have full control over the Elder Wand, and it was reluctant to kill its true owner.
Voldemort had used Harry's blood in his resurrection. While it meant that he could touch Harry without being injured and spells would no longer backfire, it also tied Harry's life force to Voldemort's.

Apparently all of the above wasn't enough though. According to Dumbledore, what "made all the difference" was that Harry willingly let Voldemort try to kill him. Had he fought against Voldemort and been hit by an AK, he would have still died. Which was why Dumbledore set things up so that Harry would have the Resurrection Stone when he thought he was about to sacrifice himself.

I would have still preferred it if Harry had died because quite frankly his character arc was complete the moment he let Voldemort attack him. But in hindsight there was quite a few clues that more was going on than just Harry being the final Horcrux.

EDIT: Harry's sacrifice protected the people he cared about from the full effects of Voldemort's spells, and that was without him dying. The protection would presumably be even more powerful if he had died. IMO the good guys would have still won if Harry had died as Voldemort's spells would have been at best ineffective, and at worst would have backfired (if the protection grew to full strength due to Harry's death).

[JLTucker]

So after a decade and seven books just let the bad guy win? do you know how much of a middle finger that is?

Yes. it would have been glorious.

[Havok]

So after a decade and seven books just let the bad guy win? do you know how much of a middle finger that is?

None at all? I mean yeah it puts a whole different spin on things, but it's not a middle finger. Honestly it would be refreshing for a writer to do that. I mean the bad guys have to win in most stories at some point for there to be a "heroes journey" in the first place. It's just that you normally don't get the investment in that part outside of the Star Wars Prequels.

[Tribble]

When I want to see a bad guy win, I'll put the book down and turn on the news. One of the "fantasy" aspects of the Harry Potter novels is that we get to see the good guys win despite overwhelming odds against them. I mean, the very act that started the whole series, which was Voldemort's failed attack on a baby, is kinda at odds with a story where the bad guy would win.

"Realistic Harry Potter": Voldemort kills Harry right off the bat, because how stupid is it that a baby should take down the most evil wizard in history? Cue several books of Voldemort slaughtering everyone else who gets in his way, until perhaps we have Dumbledore's valiant last stand... and then he gets killed too. Death Eaters take over the world though not before the Muggles get one last shot in by launching all their nuclear/biological/chemical weapons to irradiate the Earth. And the Death Eaters laugh as they walk over their piles of corpses because they have spells which make them totally immune. The End.

[Havok]

[JLTucker]

Actually, there was more to it than just Harry being a Horcrux:

Voldemort did not have full control over the Elder Wand, and it was reluctant to kill its true owner.
Voldemort had used Harry's blood in his resurrection. While it meant that he could touch Harry without being injured and spells would no longer backfire, it also tied Harry's life force to Voldemort's.

Apparently all of the above wasn't enough though. According to Dumbledore, what "made all the difference" was that Harry willingly let Voldemort try to kill him. Had he fought against Voldemort and been hit by an AK, he would have still died. Which was why Dumbledore set things up so that Harry would have the Resurrection Stone when he thought he was about to sacrifice himself.

I would have still preferred it if Harry had died because quite frankly his character arc was complete the moment he let Voldemort attack him. But in hindsight there was quite a few clues that more was going on than just Harry being the final Horcrux.

EDIT: Harry's sacrifice protected the people he cared about from the full effects of Voldemort's spells, and that was without him dying. The protection would presumably be even more powerful if he had died. IMO the good guys would have still won if Harry had died as Voldemort's spells would have been at best ineffective, and at worst would have backfired (if the protection grew to full strength due to Harry's death).

All I keep thinking is that all this is idiotic in the extreme. This is precisely why I now think the series is no longer any good. The HP universe is amazing except when you read crap like this. Contrived nonsense defies any sense of logic progression the story should have taken and end it on a happy note because, well, fiat.

[Tribble]

Hey, my ending is no dumber than Rowlings'!

[Vendetta]

The reason why Voldemort winning would have been terrible is that he's actually a really minor part of the narrative, for all he's supposedly the chief antagonist of it.

He shows up once or twice, most of the actual day to day villaining being done by flunkies, and he has relatively few goals beyond "be evil and racist".

It's impossible to actually be invested in an outcome where he wins because he's such a background presence. Contrast it with 1984 where the omnipresence of the Party is felt at basically all levels of the narrative and when, in the end, they break Winston we know what they were doing, why, and how Winston's narrative fits into the context of the world run by the Party.

Voldemort doesn't have that, he's not a narratively strong enough villain that his victory can possibly mean anything, and so him winning would be a bad ending to the series.

This is also why Star Wars starts in the middle, we're only invested in the Emperor's rise to power because we have the context of the following stories where him being in power means something to the narrative.

[Ahriman238]

Voldemort did not have full control over the Elder Wand, and it was reluctant to kill its true owner.
Voldemort had used Harry's blood in his resurrection. While it meant that he could touch Harry without being injured and spells would no longer backfire, it also tied Harry's life force to Voldemort's.

The blood and Voldemort as unintentional pseudo-Horcrux struck me as ass-pulls. But here's the thing I really don't get. The Elder Wand has been held by hundreds of hands over the centuries, and usually the first thing it was used for was killing the old wielder, as the wand's true power could be used only by someone who defeated the previous master of the Wand. Rowling repeats this herself, several times, the Elder Wand only respects strength.

So, Snape's killing Dumbledore at his own behest may or may not have transferred ownership, Dumbledore thought it wouldn't, but it doesn't matter because Draco "defeated" Dumbledore (with a magical suckerpunch) first. So let's accept that Harry was the true owner of the wand ever since he disarmed Draco, to the moment he walks into the clearing- and Voldemort smacks him in the face with a killing curse. Does that not count as victory enough? Did the stick which spent centuries giving it's allegiance to whoever was strong or clever enough to overcome it's owner suddenly pick up a sense of philosophy regarding the precise definition of "winning?"

[Eternal_Freedom]

It's not transferred through victory, but through defeating your opponent. Harry didn't fight or resist, so he wasn't defeated. The same would probably apply to Dumbledore.

As for the blood thing, well, go back and read the end of book 4, and witness Dumbledore being very interested in Voldemort using Harry's blood, and that line about "for a moment, Harry thought he could see a flash of triumph in his eyes." Four books earlier is hardly an asspull.