Is Luna Lovegood the anti-Hermione?

[serenadust]

No: HPFGUIDX 113590

Debbie wrote:

<snip>
> Now, if Luna is a counterbalance to Hermione, why did JKR wait 
> until 
> now to introduce Luna to the story?  My simple answer to that 
> question is that JKR introduced her so late, and made her so odd, 
> so 
> that we would not become too attached to her before JKR kills her 
> off.   If you think about it, her calm acceptance of death and 
> belief in the afterlife would soften the blow considerably.  
> JKR has also laid a foundation for reader acceptance of that 
> death.  
> In addition to her speech to Harry,  Luna's oddness (kooky 
> jewelry, 
> upside down reading habits, lack of concern for her material 
> possessions) is itself an otherworldly characteristic.


I really thought that I was the only one who feels that Luna will be 
the sacrificial lamb of the "expanded" trio (now, sextet). Debbie's 
explanation really rings true for me, and as I'm pretty sure that 
JKR will have to have some losses among the students closest to 
Harry, Luna seems to be by far the most likely candidate.  In 
addition to the excellent analysis above, Luna's serene acceptance 
of death seems to reflect Dumbledore's.  Given the many clues 
supporting the expectation that Dumbledore will die before the end 
of the series, Luna's character development seems to fall in line 
with the way JKR prepares the reader for that eventual outcome.

 
  
Paul wrote:
<snip>
> Both the mirror and the headless Nick didn't work. Luna as the 
Deus 
> Ex Machina made the difference. Consider her as an Aspirin. The 
real 
> cure on the other hand is certainly Hermione (Not a shipping 
> comment, Cease fire). Hermione during the whole saga has proved 
that 
> she knows Harry like the back of her hand and understands him 
> perfectly. She is the only one that can soothe him with her 
presence 
> and her words and until now she was never wrong. All her actions 
> helped him in the long run and that is what counts.


I'm afraid that I can't agree that Hermione really knows Harry "like 
the back of her hand".  There are too many examples of her 
misreading his emotional state to support the notion that she 
really "gets" him.

Debbie wrote:

> Hermione, on the other hand, tends to take a pro-active approach 
> to 
> things.  She is a keen observer and implemented a number of 
> schemes 
> to deal with his problems, but there's plenty of evidence that she 
> was not truly in sync with Harry.  A simple example is the 
> homework 
> planner she gave him for Christmas.  She was trying to impose her 
> own organization and study methods on him, and it didn't work.  
> And 
> she nagged him again and again about Occlumency without seeming to 
> appreciate Harry's attraction to the corridor.  Again, Hermione is 
> advocating her solutions to his problems instead of trying to 
> understand his needs. 


She does seem to frequently misread Harry's nedds. A fairly trivial, 
yet telling example in GoF, was her dismissal of the idea that Harry 
would want a game of Quidditch to take his mind off his worries.  
Another from OOP would be her assumption that Harry wants to ask Cho 
out (Ron shrewdly suggests that he doesn't *want* to ask her), and 
her presuming to vanish his remaining Invigoration Draught after 
Snape has destroyed his first sample, causing him to get another 
zero.  I think these episodes illustrate that Hermione, while 
meaning well, often misreads Harry's wants and needs.

Jo Serenadust