I just saw a JKR interview on TV. She said that the one who was supposed to die was ARTHUR WEASLEY!!!! She allowed him to live, and killed Tonks and Lupin instead!!!! JKR said that she originally planned to kill him, but since Harry had already lost 3 Father-figures, with James, Sirius and DD, she gave him a reprieve, but felt that she had to kill off someone else, because after all, it was war.

How do you feel about that?

I LOVE Mr. Weasley, and think it would have been horrible for him to die, so many lives would be affected! So much sadness!!!!!

I prefer that Lupin and Tonks died, if it was a choice between them and Arthur, but I wish that they had gone out in a blaze of glory, and not with a mere mention.

I miss Lupin and Tonks more than I'd miss Mr. Weasley. I always really liked Tonks and Lupin. Also like I said in M.O.O.O.P. the Weasley kids are all older. Teddy had to grow up without parents. I too wish they had gone out in a blaze of glory. Their deathes stunk.

Frankly, I think it was just as much a loss of a father-figure for Harry to have lost Lupin. Lupin was as much a "father" to him as Arthur. But, the loss of Lupin would have been slightly easier for Harry to bear because if Arthur had died, Harry's guilt to each of the Weasley's would have been overwhelming. (Not that Harry was guilty of anything, but that is how Harry feels, you know?)

I thought that Lupin would die, that both of the twins would die and I suspected that Arthur would die, too. I'm surprised she hadn't planned to take both Lupin and Arthur from the beginning, though.

I do feel that killing both of Teddy's parents was unneccessary. I'm not a mother but am of the age to be contemplating becoming one. I don't think I can imagine a situation where we'd be parents to a 3-month-old and both take off to fight in a battle. One of us, okay. But both of us? No way. If Daddy was going to fight, then my place is with our infant. (Or "If Mommy is going to fight then Daddy better sit his butt down and take care of the baby.")

I think it was irresponsible of the Lupins to involve both of themselves in the fighting...

I think that it was good that she didn't kill off Arther. SO much have happened to the Weasly familay Fred dies, Bills face, and they are already poor. Without Arthur they wouldn't make any money. It was ok that Lupin died, i already thought he was going to die when he told Harry he was his Godfather. BUt i don't think Tonks should have died. Tonks Mother must have been a wreck, her huspand dies, then her daughter dies, and son in law dies, and she has to take care of the baby. I was actuelly hoping malfoy would die but that didn't happen.


Kreacher Black

Kreacheriscool [btw, nice name.] You wanted Malfoy to die!!? well i'm glad they didn't.

But yeah, I read this in an interview or something a while ago, it was somewhere in one of her interviews. Anyways, it made sense. She said she wanted an echo of Harry. Teddy being the "harry." Luckily, Teddy still had his grandparents and godfather, all the Potters, and the Weasleys. and haha, don't forget victorie. I think Lupin used to be my favorite character but somewhere along the way, I lost him. All the Marauders died. The only thing about tonks and lupin's dath that upset me was it seemed so ungreat. We just saw them dead.. no bravery or anything. Also, as kreacheriscool said, the Weasley's had already lost so much. and Mr. Weasley dyiing would have killed Molly. Also, there's the finanical situation also. But I like how JKR said she wanted an echo of Harry because that's excactly what I thought too.

The Weasleys didn't lose all that much! I mean, I'm sorry for Fred - a senseless death if ever there was one! But, to say that the Weasleys had lost so much is a bit of a stretch.

In fact, I would have much preferred to see Arthur die than Tonks and Remus. To keep Arthur alive, she gave up two lives instead! Personally I feel that Jo probably thought that an orphaned Teddy would be a greatt parallel to the orphaned Harry we had come to know. It gave her an excuse to make Harry Teddy's godfather, not that that was necessary. Harry could have been godfather to Teddy if Remus and Tonks had lived.

I saw an interview last night - on NBC DATELINE - where she said she carefully planned each death. She chose not to have Hagrid die because she wanted him to carry Harry out of the forest. But, she wanted Fred (though she debated if it should be George), Remus, Tonks and other characters to die. And, she even wanted for Hedwig to die - symbolism of Harry no longer being a child.

Sorry Jo, but there were just too many deaths, and IMO, most were totally unnecessary.

This is a hard question to answer. I like Mr. Weasley and I would feel horrible if the Weasley's were to lose him. That would be devestating to them. But because Lupin and Tonks died instead, their son is going to grow up without knowing his parents. It would maybe be different for me if only one (Tonks or Lupin) died. But right now ... I'm not sure. Both are horrible.

hmm my original prediction for DH was that mr weasley was going to get killed off and it almost did happen, i think i was more shocked that he didnt get killed than i would of been had he of died.

i dont want that to sound cruel but at the end of the day everyone seems to have lost a father figure and lupin was one of james' closest friends so it hit harry pretty hard anyway.
and we cant forget that lupins just had a baby whos now been left without parents, like harry had been.

i suppose it was a hard decision and it was cruel someone had to go but i dont think JK had to kill off two more just because mr weasley was still alive. yea its a war but she could have killed off someone else... not that i didnt like mr weasley its just that lupin and tonks were killed off so... unceremoniously

But by killing of Tonks and Lupin she got to make a statement about the downsides of prejudice (against werewolves) and Harry got to bestow upon Teddy those things he wished someone had done for him becaus he got to be his godfather. I think it was a good tradeoff by not killing Mr. Weasley.

I understand that there should have been quite a few people killed off as it was supposed to be a major war, I am like others very disappointed however that Lupin and Tonks were not given a more glorious death. To just be lumped in on the death list with no actual battle seemed a shame. I wonder if JKR really realised just how much we had all taken to Tonks and Lupin.

I thought that myself but surely she knows how well liked they both were.I don't really understand why she couldn't bring herself to kill Mr Weasley to be quite honest.Don't get me wrong I love all the Weasleys but I don't see why his life merits the deaths of both Lupin and Tonks and I have heard it said that she was very fond of Lupin so what made it so easy to kill him and his wife and orphan his child?
I think the death of either Lupin or Tonks would have been fitting and that death,though sad,would have been easier to accept but at the same time I couldn't picture either one without the other now Horrible though it sounds I think I would have preferred Mr Weasley to die in book 5 and have Tonks and Lupin alive and well

I would have not been happy if Mr. Weasley died. I mean not only has every father figure for Harry been killed, but now the Weasley clan without their father either, that would have been too harsh. I am happy that Mr. Weasley lived and Lupin and Tonks took his place. I personally believed that Lupin was doomed even before I read the book so that my have made his passing at least a little easier to deal with.

I think Jo does a good job portraying death and war accurately. Death doesn't discriminate between who has children and who doesn't. It wouldn't be a believable story if Jo had only killed off those who were 'unimportant' (say, nameless Aurors and Tonks's parents). It's not fair for a reader to say, 'Jo shouldn't have killed ______ because Harry needed them', or 'becuase they left a family behind,' or 'because I loved them too much.'

Jo wrote a realistic battle scene. Not every death has to happen with a bang. Not every good character will die a valiant death, sacrificing themselves for someone else. Sometimes they might just get hit by a stray curse and die quietly off to the side, no matter how brave. Some deaths will seem to be wasted. That's how war happens. I don't expect Jo to sugar-coat the battle to keep the readers from grief. Her stories have never been about sparing the readers' feelings. It's not fair to expect that from her.

But I digress. As for my opinions on the deaths, I am overjoyed that Mr. Weasley survived, though he is far from my favorite character. I think I am gladder for Ron's sake than for Mr. Weasley's.

Lupin's death seems fitting, seeing how he was the last Marauder and everything. Now all the Marauders can be together. That thought doesn't make his death any easier to swallow, though. Tonks's death I can handle, since I only met her in the 5th book, and didn't have too much time to become emotionally attached to her.

But Fred. I cried and cried when Fred died. I don't think I'll ever completely get over that one. But once again, I'm not blaming Jo for killing him. Death doesn't care whether or not someone had a great sense of humor, or whether or not a person will leave a twin behind. But I cried all the same.

As controversial as many of the deaths were, I wished she had included one of the kids from Slytherin in the deaths, and used that as a plot point to bring about change within Slytherin. She had the chance when they were searching for the diadem, butI think it was not emphasized enough.

Did I miss that or would that have been a fantastic plot point. I also wished that something would have happened to Lucius Malfoy to perhaps bring about a change in Draco. After all Dumbledore sacrificed himself and one reason he did was so that Draco's soul wouldn't have been spoiled.

The Weasley's are a big family, and in the whole war they only lost Fred. I am not saying that Fred wasn't a big loss but, to have Mr. Weasley die instead of Lupin and Tonks would have been well better in the long run.

All the Weasley children are old enough to understand that their father died to protect them from Voldemort. But the now parentless Teddy will never know his parents and well grow up hearing stories of the way the died, kind of like Harry. (Although he was probably more loved by his family than Harry)

I did like Mr. Weasley but at least he got to see his children grow up and live long years with his wife. Now for Lupin and Tonks they won't even get to know their child wich really saddeneds me. =[

And JKR could have made both characters die honnerably rather than a passing mention.

And although I do think that she describes death and war accuarlately I do feel that the deaths of Lupin and Tonks really hit hard.

I wish JKR wouldn't have killed Tonks and Lupin. Lupin was one of my favorite characters and it was a shame that JKR didn't describe his battle with Dolohov. I also wished she could have let at least one of them live so Teddy wouldn't be an orphan. But if it was a choice between Tonks and Lupin and Arthur Weasley, I would choose Arthur because it would be very sad if he had died because the family had already lost Fred and it would cause them a lot of pain to lose another loved one as well.

I agree that it was a strange decision for JK to place both Tonks and Lupin at the Battle of Hogwarts. It doesn't make sense that both of them would risk their lives with a 3-month old baby at home. Without meaning any disrespect for Tonks, I would rather lose her from the wizarding world than Lupin. In my own private continuation of the story I would rather see Harry's life with Lupin in it over all the other adults. Of all the "father figures" that Harry had throughout the series, his relationship with Lupin was the most sound, enduring, and--for Harry--actually satisfying. Lupin gave him skills, they really spent time together--over the course of 3,4,5, & 6, Lupin talked to Harry about his parents without projecting his lost relationship with either of them onto him; he respected Harry. I think Harry deserved to keep Lupin.
Besides the loss of Lupin I have to say that I missed Snape throughout all the 800-odd pages. He was so present in every other book--strange to not hear anything but flighty rumors of him after this last +decade filled with hours and hours in Potions class, countless chance meetings in the hallways, and much discussion/thoughts when he wasn't around. Trusting Dumbledore, I can say I never doubted Snape--even at the end of HBP. Having to wait until the end of the book for the details was utterly, deeply unsatisfying to me. i wanted more about his internal decision to turn on HWMNBN, the way he was able to do it, his relationship with Dumbledore, why the menacing/wicked demeanor for all those years...
Finally, the epilogue seemed to me a tidy way to keep another author from coming along and writing some spin-off books. Trite and meaningless if amusing in a "I wanna be...when I grow up" kind of way.

about arthur weasley supposedly to die in ootp will be a brutal blow both to the weasleys and to harry. and as for our hero, he also did lost sirius his god father in that same book, a tragic lost as both were a kind of fatherly figure to him.
as for lupin and tonks seeing them die fighting in a battle was indeed sad but they die in purifying the wizarding world and as lupin has said he died to make his son's life to have a better world to live.

I'm a little bit torn on this issue of dealing with deaths in the book as realistic. As much as I would love to believe that Harry Potter and his world exist and things are actually happening on their own, this is simply not the case. JK completely controls what happens, and if this was a realistic book, it would not be a best seller. Every author has a story and needs to make it interesting, not just have what happens happen by choice. This being said, I feel like Tonks and Lupin were realistic deaths, but her keeping Arthur alive was not at all by chance. I mean, that would really complicate Ron's life. One thing that separate him from Harry as a character is the fact that he has a huge family with great parents, whereas Harry basically has nothing. Having Arthur die would make them too similar. Also, Ginny and Ron would be rediculously devastated if both their brother and father died, which would make the ending a little sticky. Even though Ron's brother is dead in the end, he is still able to go be with Harry and Hermione for the last scene. I can't picture him being anywhere away from his family had his father also died.

I guess my point is this is a story. There are plot-driven reasons why things happen and people die, although we would like to think that everything was naturally inclined. But that's just my opinion, which is why we discuss

I'm glad JKR didn't kill off Arthur in the fifth book, the poor Weasleys and Harry would have been heartbroken!! Harry would have taken two heavy blows in that book too, Arthur and Sirius. I'm not sure if I liked Lupin and Tonks dying, though. I wish someone had explained how they died to Harry when he saw their bodies at least, we didn't have to actually see it happen.

I was really unsatisfied on this. I too would miss Tonks and Lupin more than Mr. Weasley. It is fine that Mr. Weasley got a reprieve, and everyone expected Lupin's death, BUT NOT TONKS!!! Instead of Tonks it should have been Lucius Malfoy, I expected his death in the 7th book the entire time I read it, but it never happened. That's what I think.

I understand what JK was saying but I also felt that Lupin could have been like a father figure. I don't know if either of them had to die. Why kill two when only one was supposed to die. I don't know if I would have liked it if Arthur died but I know that I didn't like that both Tonks and Lupin died since they just had a baby.

if she was worried about killing off another father-figure than i think she made the wrong choice, remus is more of a father to harry than arthur. I think that maybe since she killed fred, the weasley family has had enough and molly dealing with seven grief stricken kids all alone would be just too much.

I have always liked Lupin and Tonks much more than Arthur. However, I do think Arthur should have the reprive. Lupin--he had to die: all the Marauders did, in backwards order (instead of Moony Wormtail Padfoot Prongs: Prongs Padfoot Wormtail Moony). Tonks--well, she not even introduced until OoP. Also, I think that losing Fred and Arthur would be too much, even if Teddy did lose his parents.
Lupin and Tonks leaving Teddy an orphan was also symbolic to me--it echoes Harry and shows the cost of war...and Teddy turned out just fine, as we see in the epilogue. Though he probably was sad for his parents, it's not the same if you never knew them, i think.

I most totally agree with Felix2090
I'm really glad Mr. Weasly got a reprive, he was needed in the books. It would have been too cruel to take all of Harry's father figures, and for the Weasly's to lose two family members, but why TONKS. She was one of the coolest characters in the book. I would have been totally okay if only the burden of the reprive had fallen to someone else. Lupin's death was totally expected, so I'm okay with him dying. Besides, it gave him a cool scene a couple of chapters later.

I , like many others, think that joe was right in killing off charecters who Harry and readers alike love. I know that it seems really cruel-belive me, I was really really mad when Fred died because it doesn't seem fair. And it's not fair, it's war and it's Voldemort. Fred was practically a child, Tonks was a young mother and newly married to Remus who, as you know died. Colin was a child and and Dobby was, well...Dobby-but it didn't matter because they were alive and, when somthing is alive it can be killed. When Fred was killed it could easly have been Percy, Ron or Harry who was standing where Fred was standing but it just happend to be Fred. Bella's knife could have hit Harry but it hit Dobby. The killing Curses that hit Hedwig and Mad-Eye could have hit Hermione, or, George, or Bill but it hit them so they died.
Also, It seems pretty acurate for one of the Weasleys to...oh I can't say it-I love them to much. Well it just makes sence because there are nine of them and the odds of all nine of them suviving the war, especially since most of them fought right when Voldemort came back in book 5 and they all (except for maby Charlie and Bill-i'm not sure if they where there) of them fought in book seven.
As for Mr. Weasley dieing I really can't say wheather I would rather him go or Tonks and Lupin Because I love all of them and I'm glad i didn't make that decision because Joe is much better at that sort of thing than I am...

i think part of the reason Mr. Weasley wasn't taken wasn't just the father figure for Harry...it was Ron.
Ron was always the comical, immature, and optimistic guy who everyone (at least i HOPE so...) loved...i could definitely relate to Ron alot...he wasn't the bravest, or the smartest. and the loss of Mr. Weasley would be...devastating. He would lose that immaturity, the carelessness, that makes Ron so...human. OoTP was definitely the book that brought me to the level of understanding the devastating potential of the dark side--Killing Mr. Weasley, especially after Harry already being extremely put-out and moody--would have brought down the mood that much more. i think readers needed a more transitional change into the nearly-engulfing darkness of Book 7.
also, JKR wanted to recreate a beginning similar to Harry's. Poor Teddy Lupin will grow up an orphan, yet we get to see what was never an option for Harry--having family, a godfather, and loving people always surrounding.

She hasn't said that she planned the deaths very well? Well at least the Lupins? Coz they don't even have one!! I love Arthur, he's so sweet and funny, but I'd rather see him go instead of two of my favorite characters! But anyway why not give them a deathscene? And yeah just something... not them just lying there and then forget them. Made me upset with the whole book. heh. Not reading it again. Seriously. Not good for the waterlevel in me (tears)

I would have prefered it if Arthur died than Tonks and Lupin. Arthur was less of a father figure than Lupin was. I was really depressed that all the Marauders died. And that poor Teddy doesn't get to have a daddy. Also, If Arthur died, Ron would have been able to relate to Harry more and the may have become even closer.