Hermione dying???

[columbiatexan]

No: HPFGUIDX 37506

Hehe, I don't think so, at least not until the 7th book, when all 
bets are proverbially off.  Everyone's fair game to die in Book 7, 
including Harry himself, but there is a very small group of 
characters that I think will make it until at least that last book, and 
one of 'em is Hermione, but not because she's based on 
Rowling as a child.

To put it very badly, Harry NEEDS Hermione to do the research 
for him; she's his fountain of information, a human Internet/
portable reference.  Actually, I think someone said this before, 
but whenever there's a character based on the author in a novel, 
the character usually ends up dying tragically or being/marrying 
the hero (although how this fits in with, say, To Kill A Mockingbird 
is beyond me).  I think one thing we've all learned by now is not 
to expect Rowling to do things that have been done before--yeah 
we have to be careful not to go overboard with the whole, "It's a 
cliched ending, therefore it's not happening," but I mean, could 
you have honestly predicted 90% of the stuff that's happened so 
far after reading the first book?  I think we all knew Lord 
Voldemort was coming back, but how and all that stuff that 
happened in between?

Hermione's safe not b/c Rowling doesn't want to kill herself, but 
because she's Rowling's way of feeding Harry information, logic, 
reason, and even-tempered thinking.  She's the yin to Harry and 
Ron's yang (or is it the other way around?); Harry and Ron, 
ironically enough, are driven more by emotions, gut feelings and 
instinct, whereas Hermione is driven by logic, a desire to learn 
and understand and use her mind to solve problems.  I suppose 
it's why Ron is so good at chess, because he's probably more 
willing to sacrifice and play recklessly, whereas Hermione 
probably thinks too much to be good at strategy.  I could see a 
whole bunch of endings happening at this point, fewer but still 
quite a number of endings that I would like, and Rowling gets to 
only "pick" one... it'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.

In any case, I think Harry, Snape (Rowling said when asked by a 
little girl if he was going to fall in love (the only time I've ever seen 
in a chat transcript that she was visibly stunned) that we'd find 
out more about that in Book 7, implying he's still there), 
Hermione... hmm, well I'm sure a few more characters are 
guaranteed to stick around to Book 7.  I'm pretty sure 
Dumbledore will have to be dead or incapacitated by the final 
battle though, because part of Harry's "coming-of-age" will 
involve him facing Voldemort without Dumbledore, though not 
necessarily alone--in fact, he may have to face him WITH HIS 
FRIENDS, that may be the fact that's kept him from beating him 
so far.

It's ironic we're talking about this, because last night I was 
talking to my best friend here at school about "Who's going to 
die?" and we were comparing notes.  She listed a lot of 
characters whom she thought were expendable, but I don't think 
all the characters who die in the next few books will be 
expendable, at least not if Rowling is going to be true to the 
story.  She has to kill characters we care about to get across to 
the readers how truly evil Voldemort is, the kind of anguish the 
wizarding world is going through at the time.  I mean, come on, 
honestly, were you absolutely horrified that Cedric was killed?  I 
read it knowing someone "important" was going to die, and I 
didn't realize it was him until the end of the book when no one 
else died... I kept waiting for someone like Moody, Hagrid or 
Dumbledore or someone to die.  Reading it the second time, I 
was moved, but more because of the emotional impact on Harry 
(he blames himself) than anything else.  It'll just be really cheap 
if she kills of the characters we don't really care about--for 
example, if one of the Creevey brothers are the "fan" of Harry's 
who dies.  No, I won't mind if she's being cheap, at least not the 
part of me that wants all my favorite characters to survive to the 
end, but it'll lessen the impact of the story for certain.

My friend Tami thought Ginny was expendable too, which I'm not 
sure if I quite agree with.  I think it would absolutely devastate the 
Weasley family.  I imagine Ginny is a Daddy's girl and the one 
her mom was "hoping for" (don't you think it a little interesting 
that ginny is the very last child--I know plenty of people who kept 
having kids because they wanted at least one child of the gender 
they didn't have yet), and probably the apple of her brothers' 
eyes.  Speaking an older brother with a little sister, I know I 
would be absolutely devastated if I lost my sister; the fact that 
she's the youngest and the girl makes me think that, as bad as it 
sounds, her death would be worse for the family than if one of 
the boys died.

Oh, one last little tidbit, and then I really have to move on (at least 
until someone else says something that gets my attention)--
Prisoner of Azkaban (paperback) (p.371/ch.19).  Sirius is talking 
about Pettigrew: "... ready to strike at the moment he could be 
sure of allies... and to deliver the last Potter to them."  Why the 
emphasis on "the last Potter?"  Something is definitely up here... 
it would make sense with the whole Voldemort wanting to kill 
james and Harry but not Lily, as well as the fact that Harry has no 
living Potter relatives anymore.  Something is important about 
this family, but I'm hoping it's not something as simplistic as 
"Harry Potter, the Heir of Gryffindor."  If anything, that will just 
serve to remove him even more from the rest of society and 
that's not what he needs (plus it's almost as contrived as 
OBHWF... the Heir of Slytherin VS. the Heir of Gryffindor).  BTW, 
has anyone noticed yet that the animals for the other three 
houses are all animals that eat or could kill a snake (lion; eagle; 
and badgers, which are much like mongooses, and I believe 
they do eat snakes).

Rohit (columbiatexan)