We need ya Teddy!

I still disagree. It was well written.
On the subject of happy endings:
Severus Snape- Had a very unfair ending, but still did the one thing he could to make sure Lily would forgive him. And the very last thing he saw were her eyes.
Remus- okay... his ending was unfair. But, in his words, he died so Teddy could live in a better world.
Tonks- same thing. But she's going to get her sweet revenge on Bellatrix in Reunion of the Departed.
Teddy- He's still alive! There isn't an ending to his story!

You're seriously going to tell me that dying counts as a happy ending? Yes, great and all for Severus to get a sliver of Lily at the end, but really, he still dies from blood loss at Voldemort's hand. He doesn't even get to see or know that Voldemort actually died!
Remus and Tonks had ridiculously unfair and pointless deaths. Okay, "making a better world for Teddy" doesn't justify their deaths- and since it leaves him an orphan I'm not entirely sure how that makes his life better. Seriously, the majority of the Order spent their lives toward that goal, dying for it at the very last moment wasn't going to contribute that much, as horrible as that sounds. Remus and Tonks could have survived and Harry could have still beaten Voldemort. As for Teddy- again, he's an orphan. If not an ending, that's not a very happy start to his story.

No, not actually dying, the reasons they died.
Snape died because Voldemort was an idiot. But he still spent his final moments bringing Voldemort down.
Remus and Tonks died trying to give Teddy a better world. Are you going to argue with Remus? That's what he said.
AND TEDDY'S STORY ISN'T FINISHED YET! He's like Harry. You really can't say Harry had a very happy beginning, but he had a happy ending, didn't he?

For Teddy, it really pains me that JKR purposefully created another character in Harry's position. When Harry defeated Voldemort for the first time, you could say the Weasley's had a happy ending. But I find it hard to look at that time of peace for them and not think about what Harry was going through at the same time. It's very similar for Teddy and Andromeda in comparison to the Trio.

You can squeeze out the bright side of the most gruesome, useless death, and it still doesn't stop the fact that the person died. What they did do, no matter who great or important, still pales in comparison to what Severus or Remus or Tonks could have done.
Besides, Remus isn't about to voice the doubt and the despair to Harry at the moment. In some ways, that was the required answer. The other side of the answer lurks beneath the surface, there but unacknowledged.
Dying a noble death is great and all- but living is so much better.

the purpose of death is to remind the rest of us the value of life.

teddy lupin would not have been placed with a family like the Dursleys. While Tonks & Lupin died, teddy would have been brought up in a loving family.

People die every day. Some because they are old. Some because they are sick. Some because accidents happen. Some because they choose it.

When someone dies - those of us whose lives were touched by them - always wish they hadn't died. If no one died in the HBP and DH, then were would the tension that drove those books be?

Death is untimely, but it is a fact of living. Whether we lose our grandparents, parents, our children. I think the pain of having to bury your own child would simply rip you apart. It seems logical to expect those older than us to die sooner than us.

sorry if the discussion is morbid. but - you can't go through life simply saying 'death shouldn't be'. People don't want death. but it happens. If it happens in a book - then it serves literary purpose. Hermione could have died. anyone. JK wanted to instill that level of fear that no one was safe. I think she achieved that.

When dumbledore died I was mortified that there would be no one left to guide Harry and help Harry. But then we learn that Snape cared. even after all was said and done. Without Dumbledore's death - the significance of Snape's journey would have been lessened.

It proves that with Dumbledore gone, Snape still issued the patronus - of his own free will. That is mightily significant.

Well, starting backwards.
I'm not seeing how Dumbledore's death would hinder Snape's patronus, seeing how it was based on his love for Lily....not that I don't support Severus, but I don't see this particular correlation. Portrait Dumbledore still had a lot of influence in real-life activities, especially where Severus and Harry were concerned. But, Severus didn't need Dumbledore's prompting at every turn to do what was right, either.

One of my major points was that the death of some of the characters in DH didn't serve a literary purpose. Severus' death may have been unavoidable, but if it's possible to construct a story line so that Harry can die and come back to life, it doesn't seem so far-fetched that a Potions Master would be able to save themselves from poisoning and blood loss. Remus and Tonks' deaths, in particular, really had almost no meaning whatsoever. For Mad-Eye's, Dobb'ys, and even Fred's (although I don't see why it couldn't have been a different Weasley sibling) one could argue that they helped motivate Harry, but really, the extra deaths weren't neccessary.
Furthermore, obviously certain characters WERE safe. I find it contradictory that even though quite a few other characters died, the two happy couples remained completely untouched, and got to live happily ever after. Not that I wanted Hermione or Harry to die, but I have to say a disporportionate amount of core characters survived. JKR really sent me a message of discrimination with her choices in character death. (All 4 Marauders, Lily, and Severus die. Not one of Harry's dorm-mates dies- heck, Draco doesn't even die and I'm sure there was quite a few people out for his blood.)

I do wonder why so many children's authors have each sequel get darker - golden compass, windsinger, gregor, to name a few - all developed so that the last book has great loss of life. - as their audience expands to adults, do they think they will only be respected if they show how "tough" they can be?

I think books have an ability to really show the finality of death. Cartoon characters (aimed at kids) die countless times in the same episode only to come back in 5 minutes later without any incident/scar/consequence.

I don't think death should be a subject that we 'shield' kids from. It is as much a part of everyone's journey as breathing.

When a celebrity dies, they are eulogised for being saintly. When 'people' die - there often is little or no fan-fare. although to their family and friends, they meant everything.

I just think it is an interesting subject. Particularly to explore in literary terms.