Doesn’t matter how much you quibble and complain about the designation, modern tragedies are tragedies. Any existential roots they might have are really just a demonstration of the problem of boxing stories not the bastardization of the form. And in modern tragedies the death is ALWAYS the main character, main enough that they’re often even the title character. The structure exists, you just need to accept that it’s real and legitimate, you might not like it but that’s not the structure’s problem.
But his pseudo-death didn’t actually beat Voldemort, only part of him. Voldy would still be plenty of a threat even with no horcruxes, so without actually accomplishing the defeat the death lacks meaning. It might not be completely meaningless but it’s still hollow.
She said she wrote the end years and years ago. Maybe the way she wanted to end it all along was just exactly how editors would request. At this particular juncture I don’t think editors and publishers have much power over JKR. She’s the goose that can choose to stop laying golden eggs whenever she wants, they need to keep her happy not the other way around.
Modern tragedies are basically existentialist writings by another name as I’ll say again and again.
“Any existential roots they might have are really just a demonstration of the problem of boxing stories not the bastardization of the form.”
If the author subscribes to the philosophy that death and life has no meaning, then it is existentialism.
“And in modern tragedies the death is ALWAYS the main character, main enough that they’re often even the title character. The structure exists, you just need to accept that it’s real and legitimate, you might not like it but that’s not the structure’s problem.”
The title character isn’t always the protagonist. In fact, in much of modern literature he/ she isn’t.
“But his pseudo-death didn’t actually beat Voldemort, only part of him. Voldy would still be plenty of a threat even with no horcruxes, so without actually accomplishing the defeat the death lacks meaning. It might not be completely meaningless but it’s still hollow.”
Harry’s death was necessary to defeat Voldemort.. He was a horcrux, thus as long as he lived, Voldy was going to live. As I pointed out at least ten times, the final confrontation could have been structured in a way that Voldemort was destroyed after he killed Harry. In fact, as I pointed out, it makes no dramatic sense that the snake was killed after Harry... It would seem to me that Harry should have been the last horcrux destroyed.
“She said she wrote the end years and years ago. Maybe the way she wanted to end it all along was just exactly how editors would request. At this particular juncture I don’t think editors and publishers have much power over JKR. She’s the goose that can choose to stop laying golden eggs whenever she wants, they need to keep her happy not the other way around.”
Perhaps you are right... But that speaks ill of her as an author. The ending, especially the Epilogue, was clearly pandering.