Of course we knew more characters would die, so this news isn't really news. WHO will die is news. My guesses:
1) Severus Snape - Sacrificial Lamb, Sr.
2) Harry Potter - Sacrifical Lamb, Jr.
Both will die to save others, probably at the hands of the Dark Lord. I believe Harry will take Voldemort with him. The Leaky Cauldron links to J.K. Rowling's interview (wait for the jump) on the Richard and Judy Show.
Your theories?
Update: I listened to the MP3s. From what I gathered, Rowling will kill off at least two characters, which means she may kill off more than two. Rowling said two people die in Book 7 that she didn't intend to die (the final chapter of Book 7 was written years ago), and she saved one character who was supposed to die. Can't wait for that book.
Update II (6/27): Soccer Dad's theory:
I'd be very surprised if Harry gets killed. I believe his destiny is to become the Defense of Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts. But I can also understand her wish to "own" Harry Potter exclusively. Harry Potter, while it may be appreciated at a number of levels, is still a children's series. Having a children's series whose main character is killed just wouldn't work. If that happened Harry Potter would be deemed too dark for children younger than teens. I can't imagine that's something that Rowling seeks.
I've heard people say that killing Harry Potter would be bad for marketing. Why would you want to buy all that Scholastic and Warner Brothers merchandise with depictions of a dead character?
Blogger speculation: JustOneMinute, Sword of Gryffindor, Dean's World (advice for fiction writers)…
Funny man Laurence Simon says: "The question is not 'Will Harry Potter die?' but 'How will Harry Potter die?'"
I'm quick on the draw, Glenn. I live on the Net. 
A critic says JKR is trying to generate publicity. True, and it worked!
The Leaky Caudron's Melissa Anelli appeared on radio and MSNBC to talk about Book 7. Go to the site (wait for the jump) to download the MSNBC video file and MP3 radio interview.
Update III (6/29): Stephen Bainbridge says Harry's toast.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if J.K. Rowling touches the Weasleys, I'll never forgive her.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
IMHO, Snape and one of the Weasleys die.
I also think that Harry may end up walking away from the wizard world to the muggle world.
June 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I know several think that Harry will be killed; but, I think Rowling already foreshadowed that he will live. I need to find the reference in one of the earlier books, but it refers to a post-Book 7 Harry.
I agree on Snape, but I think, based on the wording of the interview ( "two die that I didn't intend to die" ) that she's talking about a couple of B-list characters - say, Percy Weasley and Draco Malfoy (assuming Draco doesn't have some dark-horse, A-list role in Book 7), or one of the Order or a Deatheater.
I think the next Rowling quote ( "I never intended to kill him off before the end of Book 7″ ) is a red herring.
I'm guessing that, if a major character is going to die, that Rowling both intended and planned for it.
As always, I could be wrong.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I wrote this post before I listened to the interview, and the part about going back and changing the final chapter gave me pause. Someone got a reprieve, JKR said. This leads me to believe it wasn't a major character. But I think a major character should die: Snape.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:22 am
I still have hope for Snape — I believe that he had a deal with Dumbledore. It is quite possible that he'll buy it in this book. My heart sank at the words "a price must be paid" — I worried for Ron and Hermione — but Rowling wouldn't go that far, would she?
Perhaps Snape and another faculty member — McGonagall? Slughorn?
Russell
June 27th, 2006 at 8:36 am
I think Hagrid will be one to die. He's beloved but she needs a
main character to die. I also hate to say it but I think one of
the trio will die…either Ron or Hermione. As an adult, I can't
believe that when I first heard this, I was so depressed thinking
it could be Harry…I can't imagine how a child would feel.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:23 am
I think JKR's statement, "You are writing children's literature, you need to be a ruthless killer" eliminates the idea that she wouldn't kill Harry because it's children's lit.
I read at Muggle Matters that JKR already put the kabosh on the idea of Harry becoming the DADA professor.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:38 am
There’s a buzz in fandom this morning: J.K. Rowling said in an interview that two characters will die in Book 7, and she’s included some intriguing comments about Harry’s fate…
June 27th, 2006 at 9:53 am
i think harry will die. given the whole "harry-is-a-horcrux" theory i think it is plausable. and have you considered the fact that the story has been told wrongly. i mean no on actually saw voldemort place the killing curse on harry, so this may have merely been him marking harry as a horcrux, or "his equal" as mentioned in the prophecy. and for those who say JKR wont kill the main character simply because the series is for children, hear this. the series is not JUST for children it is aimed for all ages, and saying that it would simply be too "dark" to kill the main characters, hows about you try reading the last 3 books. i doubt she would lighten the last book given that the books seem to have been getting darker as they have progressed. in all of the books death has been discussed and i think it would be a really good ending. (even though i love harry to bits)
June 27th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Remember how often we hear–Harry Potter, the boy who lived? JK has resurrected Harry from the dead after so many mishaps, why not another one? (growing and healing limbs, bones, etc) Hey, Fawkes is still out there somewhere. Harry won't be DADA–no job security there. He won't return to muggle world willingly–he said in GOF–"I love magic". He will live and pursue a career as an aurore and we will continue to buy the adventures of HP. Neville will figure prominently in the end. Remember–we only see things from Harry's point of view. Thats why WE have so many questions. Harry is obviously a process thinker…a little slow at the start but brilliant on the uptake, There is more to the Prophecy that meets HIS eye (the ONLY eye we see it through). Also if Harry died no matter how noble and great the sacrifice, it will always look like EVIL (ol' Valdy) triumphed over GOOD (Harry). One possibility is that if Harry loses his scar, he may lose his wizarding ability and quite possibly be returned to muggle state with memory erased. That would put an end to the series–who would want to read about about the "Adventures HP: Surrey Green Grocer"? Then again it could all be a dream ala "Dallas".
And it truly would be disastrous for marketing. When word gets out (within hours of book's release) that HP died, only the really die hards will read it (adult die hards) and no one would want to see the movie and interest in all things HP would wane and wither away within a generation –a footnote in children's literature.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Dead, Deader, Deadest
Not as important as blogging the developing situation in Gaza. Nevertheless, when J.K. Rowling pronounces that at least three good characters will die in the final book of the Harry Potter series, it important to opine on which.
My theory is that…
June 27th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I'm sure Rowling has considered that it Harry dies, some troubled kids will commit suicide out of despair. If he continues on in some kind of Hogwartian after life, like Sir Nicholas, some troubled kids will commit suicide to join him. If he lives happily ever after, some troubled kids will commit suicide because they expected him to die. The poor woman can't win!
June 28th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I go back and forth on whether Harry will die. I can see the story working both ways.
However, I REALLY don't think Ron and Hermione will die (and I hope Harry and Ginny get to have happy ever afterings as well)
June 28th, 2006 at 5:37 am
I asked her for some happy news
I loved the title of this link … Rowling mum on who gets killed off in next Potter book So she told her mother and now her mother will tell us?
The article says that JK Rowling has declared…
June 28th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Where did my comment go? I signed up for a free Gravatar and gave a password? Guess you have to check me out. It may also take a bit of time.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
When Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes he had to pull a trick out of his hat to get him back.
On the other hand, Rowling will die one of these days and her timeless books will live on. If she does not end the story, some wanabee down the road will start writing sequels. Rowling certainly is aware of this and who knows what effect it is having on how she weaves the tale.
No matter what the outcome, she has a tiger by the tail.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Hmmm. Well, first of all, Harry was described as "the boy who lived", not "the man who lived". I am a little bit confused and a little bit appalled at the idea that if Harry dies, it will seem as if evil has won. Why? For Christians, at least, death is not defeat: Christ has conquered death. I grant you that Rowling does not write from a Christian perspective. However, there is definitely a hint of more, "beyond the veil".
I enjoy Sherlock Holmes very much. But let's face it, Conan Doyle was a hack. He brought Holmes back for money.
I do not think J.K.Rowling is a hack (which is why the remark about endorsements was a cheap shot). She is telling the story she wants to tell. The worst thing that could happen to her as a writer is to knuckle under and change the story to suit her fans. I doubt if she will. I'm sorry to say it, but the first book in the series was drivel. "The story grew in the telling", and both Rowling and her characters have grown with it.
And so have her original readers. Because the books have grown progressively more mature and complex, they are more likely to continue to hold the interest of their audience. And as younger readers begin with the first (silly) book, they will likely retain interest in the series as they grow.
I have no idea which characters will die. Perhaps Harry is the one that gets a reprieve. I see a lot of "I hope it isn't _____" (fill in favorite character here). If the story is to have any impact, then some, perhaps all, of the characters who die will be characters dear to the reader. It takes courage to be an honest writer.
June 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Precisely #17:The "perception" that evil won.
"
Nowhere does it say in the books –THE MAN WHO LIVED–it says "The boy who lived" period. Where do you cut off "boy" and begin "man"? 13, 15, 18??? He lived-period. Speaking from a Christian perspective –Christ defeated death. He died, and then he rose from the dead –that was how he defeated death. Harry has done that several times. Usually in 3 days too. To those that are uneducated with the New Testament teachings, if Harry died and was NOT resurrected (be he a muggle or a dream muggle or whatever) then it would "seem" that death/Voldy won! Hence, people (most readers) no matter what, would see Harry dead and Voldy dead (even at the same time) then evil was not overcome-good is on hold, but evil is too! I don't think people would accepy Harry being dead, DEAD. A resurrected Harry or Dumbledore gives hope—the opposite of the dispair we felt in #6 book. I think we will all be uplifted by the "end of Harry Potter"-#7
June 29th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
and have you considered the fact that the story has been told wrongly. i mean no on actually saw voldemort place the killing curse on harry, so this may have merely been him marking harry as a horcrux, or “his equal” as mentioned in the prophecy. —
yeah but then how would voldemort have lost his powers and been reduced to
pretty much dead? i kind of believe the harry is a horcrux theory, but i
think somehow someone(probably hermione) will find a way around it to where
he doesn't die, like someone else on here was saying. i dont think she can
kill harry. and i dont think itd be a good ending to the story.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I wrote this over at Prof. Bainbridge:
If she sticks to form in Book 7, it will inevitably end in Harry's demise or departure to another realm.
How about this: I think Harry will depart for another realm, the muggle world. He will kill Voldemort (and lose friends along the way) and will lose/renounce his powers. Possibly due to the fawning of the wizard world. It is known that the last word of book 7 is "scar". How about this as a last sentence: "He would no longer be known only as the one who lived, the one with the lighning bolt scar."
June 29th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
LaShawn's Fantasy Fiction page is discussing who dies, too!
June 29th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Since I never read these books I have found theses discussions quite good! My 16 year old grand daughter really liked them.
I really appreciate these article and the comments as well
June 30th, 2006 at 10:38 am
I believe Harry is going to be the final "horcrux" of Lord Voldemort. Both he and Lord V. will die in a final battle. Harry will willingly sacrifice himself for the world. IMHO
June 30th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Whoah…Trish…Philosopher's Stone was "drivel"? Goodness, in the shortest book of the series, it managed to introduce all the major themes of the entire series without giving away any of the secrets. With a 7 book story to tell, that's really quite an achievement. Book 1 is brilliant.
I also don't know if it's a "cheap shot" to suggest that publicity had something to do with the statements. Statements like those fuel the fires of speculation and keep people discussing. Not all publicity-seeking is necessarily bad.
But really, these are throwaway statements. They're different versions of things she's already said.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Surely she wouldn't kill off Ron and Hermoine, sending Harry into an emotional tailspin, would she?
July 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
If my memory serves me right, I think I read somewhere where JKR let on what the last sentence in book seven would be. It was something to the fact that Harry's scar hurt. Now, that leads me to believe that Harry is going to make it.
Matt
July 2nd, 2006 at 5:26 am
I am firmly in the Snape camp. Voldemort dies because without this, good cannot triumph over evil. I just can't imagine the series ending any other way. I can see Snape as the agent of that demise - and Harry ending up owing Snape for saving his life. I guess I don't buy the "Harry as a horcrux" theory because of the prophecy. One or the other had to die. V was trying to fulfill the prophecy on his own. Which brings us to: Neville Longbottom. V might find out that there was another boy that could fulfill the prophecy. He might go after Neville just to be sure. As for two dying that she didn't intend to die: Neville would be one (but that would be an awful lot of tragedy for the Longbottom family), Draco would be the other. This may be a case where the sins of the father are visited on the son.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I am enjoying the comments. Having grand children that read Harry Potter keeps me on my toes
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 am
How about - Snape is Harry's father, Harry is the horux, Harry begs Snape to kill him, Snape can't do it so Hermionie does, Nevil and Hagrid die along the way. The last word "scar" refers to one on Snape.
Since it's really all about Snape.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
C.S. Lewis killed off Lucy in The Last Battle, as we all know, and she is still beloved by millions…
However she didn't go "beyond the veil" but to a well-defined, often-visited place, Aslan's Land. We saw Aslan's country in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, the Silver Chair, and the Magicians Nephew, and much of the Last Battle takes place in Aslan's country (i.e., Heaven.)
J.K. Rowling won't betray her careful classic plotting by a lame sort of trick such as killing off Harry Potter without foreshadowing the event and bringing the young reader to an understanding of where their beloved friend is going.
I prefer the one blogger (whose name I can't remember) who said that Harry Potter never intended his life to be one of revenge against Voldemort; he only wanted what Voldemort had taken from him: A family.
With that, I submit the final line of Harry Potter: "And in years to come, when his and Ginny's children and then their grandchildren would return from their first year at Hogwarts and want to know the tale they'd heard at school, Harry would sit them on his knee, tell them the story of the Boy Who Lived, and only if they were particularly good at listening would he give in and show them his scar."
July 7th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
We could be thinking of "death" too literally here. If Harry loses his magical powers (which is what I'm more and more inclined to think), isn't that a type of death?
JKR has also mentioned that Aunt Petunia still has an important role to play. As does, IMHO, Draco, Snape, and Dudley Dursley.
I suspect something seriously bad will happen to Ron, Hermione, and Ginny. After all, Bill Weasley was horribly disfigured by Prof. Lupin's werewolf nemesis (whose name escapes me at the moment).
But, gee, I've been wrong before!
July 8th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
All I know is that I am going to have to take vacation from work to read the book; then, as it sounds, I will need to take bereavement from work to work past the tragedies of book 7.
Dumbledore was hard enough to overcome. I have difficulty believing that Harry Potter's death is the end (if he dies at all). Secondly, if he does die, there must be some afterlife or "beyond the veil" as Rowling states that does not seem so final. It would be very difficult to sell such publicized books if the majority of the public knew Harry Potter died (although, knowing Rowling, that is most likely not a deciding factor in her storytelling). My thoughts, unfortunately, are that the marked are: Neville and Snape (possibly, if not definitely, Wormtail will also die). If Harry "leaves", it will be a new journey for him, to another place/world.
July 16th, 2006 at 7:44 am
I think maybe Snape and ron might die. AND hermonie got reprieve. I really hope so!!!
July 20th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Travis–
First, I do think the remark about endorsements was a cheap shot, because it implied that Rowling's primary interest was money and that she is willing to write to order just to get endorsements. As a writer myself, I find that insulting. I didn't say it was cheap to say she wants publicity. Of course she does. We all do.
Book 1 may have introduced all the themes (though I'm not really sure it did), but read by itself it's drivel. Or, if you prefer, it's trivial. Only if you read the entire series does it manifest itself as anything other than a rather silly school story. And like it or not, many of the readers who begin a series never make it to the end. Ask any publisher; the first book in a series is always the biggest seller.
March Hare–
No, considering the way Rowling is taking the story, Harry's losing (or voluntarily relinquishing) his powers would not be "a type of death". That idea would reinforce the notion that Muggles really are "Mudbloods" and inferior. Clearly Rowling is making a commentary about racial prejudice (on both sides, and more power to her). I doubt if she'd want to weaken that. I think when she said "die", she meant "die".
I agree that Voldemort is going to die, but that's not a surprise. I would not be surprised if Harry died and Neville turned out to be the boy in the prophecy. I don't think Hermione gets a reprieve because I don't think she was intended to die in the first place. (and probably doesn't)
I think whoever it is, it's going to be someone about whom we'll all say, "Oh, no, not him/her!"
July 25th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Rowling commented that the two people who were going to die were those she hadn't planned on killing off. But she's repeatedly stated that she had the whole series planned out from the beginning, and it's also been reported that she's told Alan Rickman everything there is to know about Snape, so that he can better play the character.
So, I don't think that these two people are major characters. This is not to say that none of the major characters won't die. She may very well have planned the deaths of any of them, including Harry. But I strongly suspect, given her prior comments, that the events in the lives of the major characters have been planned out for a long time. I don't think she started writing Book 7 and then suddenly said, "Oh, I think I'll kill off Harry now." If she plans on killing off Harry, then she's had it planned for years. I think it's minor characters, perhaps a Weasley or Tonks or someone like that, that she changed her mind about.
It wouldn't surprise me if she killed off Harry, though it would disappoint me a bit. After everything he's been through, I want him to live!!
I expect her to kill off Snape, and in some fashion that will redeem him in the eyes of both the Order and the reader (those who think he's evil, anyway).
The only thing she could do that would truly surprise me is if she allows Voldemort to win. Fantasy books, especially those for children, shouldn't have evil winning, imo. Kill off everyone, if you deem it necessary to destroy the evil, but make sure you destroy the evil in the end.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:46 am
It's not a matter of saying, "I think I'll kill off X now." No
matter how thoroughly planned the story was in the beginning, it's
bound to have changed in the writing–and that does, indeed, include
some of the events in the lives of the major characters, even if
they were planned from the beginning. Writing a novel–or series
of novels–isn't like building a skyscraper, and following a
meticulous blueprint. It's more like setting out on a long journey.
You'll get to your planned destination in the end, but there may
be many unexpected detours along the way.
I think the two are major characters. I don't think she's going to
kill off Snape, though I could be wrong. I do think there's a lot
we don't yet know about him.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I think she'll kill off Snape and Potter.
Snape dies protecting Potter who dies destroying Voldemort using the "Equivocus defence" to protect everyone.
The Equivocus defence is a last ditch spell or charm that will cause an attacker's curse to affect the attacker also.