More Deaths? And some HP References

Subject: More Deaths? And some HP References Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:39 pm

Do you think that if Stephenie Meyer went all J.K. Rowling and killed more characters than the usual one-per-book, do you think that might have made Breaking Dawn a bit more successful? If she killed a character that was close to Bella and the story such as one of the Cullens or a wolf pack member?

Think about it - you might love Tonks, Lupin, Hedwig, Sirius, Mad-Eye, Fred, Dumbledore and all the rest who perished in the Harry Potter series a bit more because you know their time is numbered.

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 94 Age : 28 Registration date : 2009-01-27

In a way...I would say yes. It adds suspense and drama. But I have to think...if someone close to Bella died would she be able to take it? I mean she thinks everythings her fault so she'd only blame herself and be totally depressed and that would make Edward unhappy. So, ya i wish that she had killed someone though. That's one of the reasons I love J.K. Rowling so much, and the HP books.

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 99 Age : 29 Registration date : 2009-01-15

Part of me wants to say yes, I wanted to see a character death, but I knew deep down inside that Stephanie would never kill Bella or Edward. In interviews, she has stated that Bella is like a daughter for her, and you wouldn't kill off your daughter. And, on another note, in the Twilight series, you can't really kill one without the other. If Bella died, Edward would take his own life, and vice versa. Same goes for secondary characters. If Alice died, Jasper would either go back to his old lifestyle or go to the Volturi.

Going back to the J.K Rowling Topic, did you notice how all of those deaths advanced the plot or stood for something? Dumbledore's death for example gave Harry the incentive to go on the look for the Horocux's. Hedwig's death symbolized Harry shedding his childhood innocent with losing a pet he's had since his first year. Mad-eye's death proved that no matter how powerful the wizard, everyone is at risk.

In Breaking Dawn, all the energy and plot where adding up to the final battle. So, if Stephanie Meyer were to kill character's off, it wouldn't really do anything. It's the end of the last novel in the saga, at the last final pages. Basically, Stephanie would just kill Emmett or Esme or Quil off for no reason, since it would just advance the plot.

And in my opion, I would rather have one character death that ment something (i.e Irina) than five characters deaths just to have death.

P.S: Sorry for the long response, just got a little carried away Very Happy

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 285 Age : 29 Registration date : 2009-04-09

I agree with what you said about JKR killing characters to symbolize something, but I do not think that is always the case. Killing Colin Creevey did nothing to the plot of DH and neither did Tonks and Lupin's deaths.

I finally finished The Host, and

Spoiler:

Comparing it to her second project, the lack of deaths in the Twilight saga is a bit, not disapointing exactly, but a bit shocking, for lack of a better word.

My newest theory is that she is to attached to the characters in Twilight to kill them off, but I still think it would make it stronger on a whole.

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 59 Registration date : 2009-06-22

I feel I have to jump in - talking about Harry Potter & Twilight in the same chat... My idea of book heaven!

With Colin's death... er... yeah... that really meant nothing. Maybe it represent that same thing that Moody's death represent. No matter how old/young & powerful you are, you're not safe from death.

And as for Tonks and Lupin, JK explained this, i think. She said that there is nothign worse in a war than leaving a child behind. Aso, it came full circle because of what happened with Harry and now with Tonks and Lupin's son...

Now, the subject at hand, if there was death, would Breaking Dawn be better? Personel, I really like Breaking Dawn (I lie it more than Eclipse) but I think Stephenie had a whole battle in Eclipse and, because of that, there had to be redemption (one of my friends sees that as one of the themes for the Twilight Saga). The characters needed to prove to themselves that fighting isn't always the answer.

Plus (now this is me), I love the fact that there was a huge twist that no one saw coming!

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 54 Age : 33 Registration date : 2009-01-19

Okay I got to say I love your point of veiw....MOONY! Poor Moony. I think that's why I liked adn remembered HP...because most of the people I loved died. D:

PewterWolf13 wrote:: I feel I have to jump in - talking about Harry Potter & Twilight in the same chat... My idea of book heaven!

With Colin's death... er... yeah... that really meant nothing. Maybe it represent that same thing that Moody's death represent. No matter how old/young & powerful you are, you're not safe from death.

And as for Tonks and Lupin, JK explained this, i think. She said that there is nothign worse in a war than leaving a child behind. Aso, it came full circle because of what happened with Harry and now with Tonks and Lupin's son...

Now, the subject at hand, if there was death, would Breaking Dawn be better? Personel, I really like Breaking Dawn (I lie it more than Eclipse) but I think Stephenie had a whole battle in Eclipse and, because of that, there had to be redemption (one of my friends sees that as one of the themes for the Twilight Saga). The characters needed to prove to themselves that fighting isn't always the answer.

Plus (now this is me), I love the fact that there was a huge twist that no one saw coming!

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 23 Age : 28 Registration date : 2009-08-10

I think if there was a battle at the end of breaking dawn, I think the story would have been more Epic if someone like Carlisle died in a battle with the Volturi. I think Esme would be able to convince Bella that it was not her fault. Also, if a few of the foreign vampires died too, it would be sad but not as much as it would be if someone closer to Bella died. If some of them did die though, it would only be fair if some of the Voltuir died too.

If Carlisle would have died, I would have shown that the Volturi doesn't have any true friends.

thx
-teampotter

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 285 Age : 29 Registration date : 2009-04-09

failariel94 wrote:: Going back to the J.K Rowling Topic, did you notice how all of those deaths advanced the plot or stood for something? Dumbledore's death for example gave Harry the incentive to go on the look for the Horocux's. Hedwig's death symbolized Harry shedding his childhood innocent with losing a pet he's had since his first year. Mad-eye's death proved that no matter how powerful the wizard, everyone is at risk.

And in my opion, I would rather have one character death that ment something (i.e Irina) than five characters deaths just to have death.

I agree with the last part, but for the first one.....

Most of the characters that were killed in HP did stand for something. But I can't think of a good reason why Goyle or or Colin Creevey or Ted Tonks died.

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 22 Age : 31 Registration date : 2009-03-10

teampotter wrote:: I think Esme would be able to convince Bella that it was not her fault. Also, if a few of the foreign vampires died too, it would be sad but not as much as it would be if someone closer to Bella died. If some of them did die though, it would only be fair if some of the Voltuir died too.

If Carlisle would have died, I would have shown that the Volturi doesn't have any true friends.

thx
-teampotter

I disagree. I don't think anyone or anything could console Bella. I think she's like Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire. When her husband killed himself, she lost it and went crazy with guilt, even though it really wasn't her fault.

I think Bella would go crazy with guilt if anyone died. Even one of the foreign vampires. But especially if someone in her family died.

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 285 Age : 29 Registration date : 2009-04-09

StealtheMoment wrote:

teampotter wrote:: I think Esme would be able to convince Bella that it was not her fault. Also, if a few of the foreign vampires died too, it would be sad but not as much as it would be if someone closer to Bella died. If some of them did die though, it would only be fair if some of the Voltuir died too.

If Carlisle would have died, I would have shown that the Volturi doesn't have any true friends.

thx
-teampotter

I disagree. I don't think anyone or anything could console Bella. I think she's like Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire. When her husband killed himself, she lost it and went crazy with guilt, even though it really wasn't her fault.

I think Bella would go crazy with guilt if anyone died. Even one of the foreign vampires. But especially if someone in her family died.

Agreed. Bella's crazy, but I think most people feel that way. I am reading Nineteen Minutes (Jodi Picoult) and basically it is about how one person did something really, really, really, really bad (I am not giving anything away incase you want to read it) and how it effects an entire town. There are a ton of people who think they could have stopped him or drove him to it, but the people who were actually guilty had no remorse and the people who could have done nothing did. It's a weird world. And if let's say one of the Romanians died, Bella would feel awful, but I am sure the Denalis or someone else wouldn't care that much.

Twi-Holic Number of posts : 23 Age : 28 Registration date : 2009-08-10

Ok, I see your points....very clearly...

With Esme comforting Bella, not convince that it was not her fault, maybe just convince her that she did not blame her. In other words, Bella would not feel all of her grief for Esme only because he was her mate, the blame she put on her self would be equally distributed throughout their family.

I don't know if that makes any sense...let me know if it doesn't haha.

Thanks for replying anyway

Teampotter