[ SECRET POST #4569 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4569 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #654.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. https://i.imgur.com/WGWvip9.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Or JKR could have had all 3 survive

[(Anonymous)]

+1 This!

[(Anonymous)]

I'm no fan of Remus/Tonks, but even I can see and appreciate the literary symmetry JKR was going for with their deaths. They died to mimic and reinforce the tragedy of war creating orphans, as it did with Harry.

[hey_hey_hey]

Not to mention I think she liked the contrast between Harry's dad and his friends dying while Harry, Ron and Hermione survived.

[hey_hey_hey]

The romances in Half-Prince would have played out differently, too. Chest monsters and Hermione attacking Ron with birds would have been out of place with Ron and Ginny's dad being dead. Rowling probably loved both those details.

[(Anonymous)]

You could save him in Prince and kill him in Hallows, if that were the issue

[hey_hey_hey]

But wouldn't both Mr. Weasley and Fred dying a little too much? Would she have wanted Mr. Weasley's death to detract from the tragedy of a twin losing his identical brother?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I would have kept Fred alive. Ultimately Fred's death didn't have much literary impact. Mr. Weasley's death would have been a better choice, IMHO.

[(Anonymous)]

Nothing makes me happier than AUs where Fred lives.

[(Anonymous)]

Only Remus should have died. Tonks should have lived. Arthur shouldn’t be killed off.

[hey_hey_hey]

Seriously.

All the Marauders would have died and Teddy wouldn't have become a freaking orphan at 3 months old. At least Harry had his parents for a year before they died.

[rosehiptea]

Agreed. I get that war makes orphans and nice people die in war but she made some odd choices in killing people off.

[(Anonymous)]

And Harry was in no way qualified to be a guardian. I guess is was more of an honorary thing, but that put some extra pressure on his shoulders he didn't need.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sure the pressure of building a new life and taking care of loved ones was actually quite useful after everything that happened.

[(Anonymous)]

Hello there, Father Brown!

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, that's what I was thinking, too. I completely forget he was Mr. Weasley, too.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen all of the films but I didn't even know of the actor back when he began as Mr. Weasley. I recognized him because I watch Father Brown on Netflix.

[ninety6tears]

I thought she swapped out Fred for Arthur not dying, but I guess that wouldn't make as much sense.