No modern tragedies are tragedies, they’re just the new way of handling it. Existentialist writing is different. Modern tragedies have just as strong a standardized structure as classical tragedies, it’s just different. You’re just going to have to accept that there is a concept of drama called modern tragedy that has a different structure than classical tragedy and is most definitely NOT existentialism, of course even if you don’t admit it it still exists.
It depends on how and when Harry died. If his apparent death in the books had been his real death then it would have turned the series into a modern tragedy, a pointless death where none of his growth mattered in the end. Had he died in the final conflict and succeeded at taking down Voldy in the process it wouldn’t have been a tragedy, I don’t know if it would have been existentialism but it would have left the tragedy realm because his death and life would have mattered, he would have learned and grown and accomplished.
As for the “commercialism”, guess what, people write for money. The idea that something is inherently bad because it bows to commercial pressures is the most pathetic kind of literati elitism.
You stated that in modern tragedy... the death has no meaning. That is the definition of existentialism. In existentialist writings, people live and die for no reason. Some so-called “modern tragedy” is either a pure (or a bastardized form of existentialism. The rest should not be considered a “tragedy” either modern or classic because the death has meaning and it is not due to a fatal character flaw. Generally, the so-called tragic death is not the main character, but an important supporting character who spurs the main characters growth.
“It depends on how and when Harry died. If his apparent death in the books had been his real death then it would have turned the series into a modern tragedy, a pointless death where none of his growth mattered in the end. Had he died in the final conflict and succeeded at taking down Voldy in the process it wouldn’t have been a tragedy, I don’t know if it would have been existentialism but it would have left the tragedy realm because his death and life would have mattered, he would have learned and grown and accomplished.”
They way he died did matter, did show his growth, and was necessary to defeat Voldemort. In fact, Rowling could have written Voldemort and Harry in the Forest Again as the final conflict very easily. Voldemort could have been killed himself right after he killed Harry. The so-called final battle seemed to be slapped on at the end... Frankly, the fact that Harry wasn’t the last horcrux to be destroyed didn’t make much dramatic scene.
“As for the “commercialism”, guess what, people write for money. The idea that something is inherently bad because it bows to commercial pressures is the most pathetic kind of literati elitism.”
I’m all for popular art... Lots of popular artistic movements have started with the “plebs,” not the Upper East Side crowd. However, that being said I believe that an artist should remain true to their idea and not be swayed because his/ her editor, agent, etc. tells her to do X... The Epilogue struck me as that sort of pandering in its most naked form.