I think she has to kill at least one of the DA.

I think she has to kill more than one, at least. All we've gotten so far are token deaths. There were other uses for each of them, ways to increase the pathos and move Harry's story in a different direction, but it's so formulaic a method after three consecutive books of it that it's token now.

To elaborate on what I said earlier, I'm actually angry at Rowling for letting everyone get off so light at the end of book VI. If she thinks highly enough of young people that's she's willing to let them watch a character die, then she's got to have the guts to take it further and have there be more than one funeral. The werewolf who assaulted Bill lost all of his scary buildup the moment it was clear he not only failed to kill anyone in a lacked-out building full of scared children, he only managed to harm one person, and he still got a happy ending. One Big Death is such a pat way to write, and it does her no credit.

I say a serious number of people need to die in the next book, at least three of which should be onscreen, as it were. I realize it's the worst sort of fandom to dictate terms, but I'm grumpy. She's diluting the tragedy for Harry, which is why people have so much cause to snark at the melodrama.

I am with ita on the Muggle empowerment.

Just tossing out an idea here. Might Rowling go the other way, with Harry's defeat of Voldemort meaning an end to magic?

It seems unlikely thematically. Magic is at the core of Rowling's world, to the extent that Muggles barely exist except as objects of Mr. Weasley's curiosity.

But at the same time, much of Harry's success has depended on other factors. Go back even to the first book -- would Harry have even found Quirrell, much less defeated him, without his friends?

I think losing magic would be a bigger tragedy than losing Harry, and with less of a balancing factor.

I hold out hope that Hagrid will bite it, but that's just me being selfish and petty.

The werewolf who assaulted Bill lost all of his scary buildup the moment it was clear he not only failed to kill anyone in a lacked-out building full of scared children, he only managed to harm one person, and he still got a happy ending.

Exactly! He was scarier when we heard about the little brother of some previously-unknown Hogwarts students being killed by him than he was when we met him in person.

I think dependence on friends is a completely different question from the Magic/Muggle distinction. I think the first is fulfilled in Harry, the DA, and the OotP standing up together against Voldemort and the Death Eaters, which does feel supported in the text, unlike the destruction of this society that has existed for thousands of years.

And, yeah, we needed more deaths in VI.

the best reason I can come up with in words is that, narratively, it turns him into a tool. His only value is in the ability to defeat Voldy, and every other possibility and potentiality within him is subsumed by that. He was spared as a child so that he could defeat V. He was saved from the awful life he had with the Duresleys so that he could defeat V.

This paragraph speaks strongly to me, as I have issues with destiny, and can see how Harry's death supports this feeling that he was never anything but the destined Savior of the World.

I shall need to think about that more.

Simply from a writing perspective, Harry's death would cause problems anyway because how could JKR finish the novel? 6.9 books of third-person limited, Harry perspective, followed by a final denouement from the viewpoint of Hermione would be incredibly jarring.

Oh well.

But yeah, too few people died in 6.

6.9 books of third-person limited, Harry perspective, followed by a final denouement from the viewpoint of Hermione would be incredibly jarring.

Well, the first chapters of both Book 1, Book 4, and Book 6 were from more of a third-person omniscient perspective. I think she's done it enough that a final chapter from that perspective wouldn't be too jarring.

Harry's second greatest battle, I think, would be "what do I do after Voldie's dead?" Can he get up again, face the costs and move on? If he dies, he becomes a cliche, the Martyred Hero, etc. If he lives, we get to see that there are messy loose ends to great battles, that there is pain to cope with, that the world doesn't automatically become a better place. No other character's experience of the post-war world would have the same relevance after all this time.

The greatest cost to Harry would be if he had to watch/let Ron, say, die. His first friend in the wizarding world, maybe pulling a Doyle. That I can see very easily.

Hermione? She's the Muggle's witness to the wizarding world, the interpreter. She'll survive.

Neville? His revenge for his parents might necessitate his death. It would be perfectly dramatic, the boy who's been dismissed and mocked all along the way suddenly essential to the resolution. An Eowyn-esque twist of Neville being the real answer to the prophecy.

Draco? I can see it happening, but it trends towards "I can only redeem myself by dying for the cause", which is also a cliche.

Snape? It wouldn't be so much of a redemption cliche because he's been nasty but on the side of light the whole way. And it would be an ultimate "Up yours" to both Voldemort and Harry if he was the one smirking over a Doomsday weapon of some sort.

Hagrid may well be a goner, though it would be more of an angst point than any real plot point.

Personally, I do see Neville dying. I see him dying AND fullfilling the prophecy. Neville's the one that sacrifices himself to defeat Voldemort, just as the prophecy says. (I have an issue with the prophecy. Just cause Voldemort scarred Harry, doesn't make that the mark Sybill spoke of. You can scar someone much worse than cracking their head.)

I also see Mr. Weasly dying.

I think Sirius will come back from the dead just so he can die again.