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.
Repeat yourself until you die, doesn’t matter, you’re still wrong. It’s not a matter of what view the author subscribes to, what matters is the content of the story, and modern tragedy has a meaningless death of the main character at the end, period, non-negotiable. While it’s true that many books aren’t named after the protagonist in modern tragedies if the book is named after a character that character WILL be the protagonist and WILL die and it WILL be a modern tragedy and you WILL stick your fingers in your ears and yell “LALALALALALALA” because you’re just unwilling to accept that you’re wrong.
Necessary to defeat Voldy != defeating Voldy. Actually it makes perfectly good dramatic sense that Harry died before the snake. JKR had quite deliberately dropped hints, and even had Dumbledore say that it was a distinct possibility up until Voldy tried to kill Harry, that Neville was the child in the prophecy. Which we now can see was all put in to create doubt that the final confrontation between Harry and Voldy would see Harry triumphant, and of course doubt in the final outcome is put into the audiences mind to create dramatic tension, which then amped to a higher level when Harry died chapters before the end of the book, then Neville kills Nagini and it really ratchets up the possibility that everybody’s interpretation of the prophecy was wrong. Anything that ramps up dramatic tension makes dramatic sense.
OK now you’re just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. First you said she was pandering to the demands of the editor and publisher, then you admit that maybe that actually was the ending she wanted the whole time so she’s an even bigger panderer?! Now we know, you’re a failed writer, probably because you’re so addicted to form your stories are thoroughly predictable, and you’re just mad at her success. Sour grapes make bad whine, get over it, get over yourself, we’re done.