The problem of Lockheart

I really liked Chamber of Secrets on a lot of levels. But one thing really bothered me... again, this might be me misunderstanding how seriously Rowling wants me to take this story.

When Dumbldore is temporarily removed, Ron laments that he was their only hope. I'm sure that Ron assumes that Dumbledore, leading the rest of the competent wizard faculty and staff, was working, unbeknownst to the students, to solve the mystery and save the muggle borns and all that. They have all the resources and knowledge that Harry and Co spend the whole book trying to get. We see that they are preparing the cure for the petrifications. Otherwise, we don't actually see them Professer D and the rest doing anything about the attacks, except making sure everyone avoids walking alone.

Then, when the mystery becomes a real tragedy and Ginny is taken into the Chamber. The teachers all drop any attempt to actually save her in order to get their (long merited) revenge on Lockheart for being an all-talk poser. If they wanted to make a fool of him by sending him into a danger he was terrified of, but wasn't actually life threatening, that would be one thing. But they send him to accomplish a task they know he is perfectly incapable of, when a girl's life is at stake, just because they have grown tired of his bragging. At that point, I can no longer believe that they have been doing anything but reacting to the events. If that is their plan, no wonder Ginny and Tom weren't caught before.

Someone tell me how I am supposed to think of any of the teachers as anything but immature cowards? Are they all terrified because the headmaster isn't around?

I can't think of an explanation that doesn't reflect poorly on the teachers Rowling clearly wants me to at least respect. The other explanation doesn't reflect very well on Rowling herself. She really wanted Lockheart to go down into the chamber with them (he makes great comic relief) and couldn't, or didn't think of another way that would be consistent with the teacher's characters. It might have been okay for Snape, assuming he is truly a heartless villain who wants Ginny dead. But it makes no sense for the rest of them to agree to it, unless they are less intelligent than Ron, who can see through Lockheart's bragging.

Tom and Harry (and more snakes)

It’s common enough to have the main protagonist and antagonist be divergent in a few ways so that certain virtues/vices are spotlighted through the story. In fact it’s so common that it’s cliche (but not a bad cliche, just predictable cliche (then again I have weird tastes)). But let’s reiterate the similarities between Tom and Harry.

• Raised in the muggle world 
• Hated the place where they lived. 
• Half-bloods. 
• Orphans. 
• Parselmouths. 
• Clever. 
• Determined. 

And the difference?

“Because I asked not to go in Slytherin...”  - Harry Potter (CoS chp. 18)

And why did ask that? Because he was not tempted by greatness. It doesn’t matter that he may be mistaken about how evil Slytherin is, he thought it was and was not tempted by the possibility of being great. Partly due to the fact of humility that I mentioned in my last post, while it is quite obvious that Tom is arrogant and prideful, this virtue/vice is what I submit is the real difference between them. Yes it because of Harry’s choice, but vices and virtues are choices, and I wanted to know why he chose ‘not Slytherin’ and I think this the answer.

On another note I would like to point out that snakes are given a pretty awful name is this book. In fact a snake pretty much describes both Slytherin and Voldemort. In the last book we have one (count ‘em one) incident with a benevolent snake. The incident is the first instance in the saga of Harry bonding with anyone else (it’s the zoo incident from Sorcerer’s Stone if you haven’t figured it out). Harry has been associated quite often with the snake, I would even go so far as to say that the series is a fight between the good snake (Harry) and the bad snake (Tom). Again humility versus pride fits well here.

One more thing, it’s about the Dursleys. The opening scene with the outrage at the word ‘magic’ being said kept pushing into my mind the scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail the knights who say knee. And of course Richard Dawkins. “Oh, no you’ve said it again! Ahh! Now I’ve said it! I’ve said it again!”.


Confused? Querulous? Credulous? Shocked? Yeah, now I’m happy.

My Chamber of secrets comments

Dang, I wrote a really long comment to Karen's post and then there was a random power outage and I lost the whole thing. Yay Thailand. But I said something along the lines of the following.

I remember being a little creeped out when reading this book as an 11-year-old (or thereabouts). My parents didn't outright forbid any books to me, but I knew they discussed doing so and I felt a little guilty reading something that seemed so dark. I enjoyed this one much more the second time I read it, when I was a little older.

What I did enjoy, even when I was 11, was the "mystery" aspect of it. The plots of the earlier books resemble mystery novels in certain ways, and that is one of my favorite things about them. The mysterious feel of this one made it a pretty good page-turner. I also LOVE the humor in this one, especially with the ghosts. The History of Magic professor kills me! Also, Rowling is still very much introducing the world of Hogwarts in this one and it's fun to discover all its quirks. For me, whatever quibbles I have with the characters or the storyline, the fun atmosphere of these books is addicting.

On a side-note, I was surprised to find out later that a basilisk is a rooster/lizard thing. I guess this may be an example of how Rowling adapts things to fit her own ends.

Overall, a great second effort by Rowling as we start to get into the thick of it. But not as good as my favorite of the series which you all will be reading next! I've read it enough times that I don't feel the need to do so again, but I think I'll be joining you for the rest of the series.

Mostly about Snakes

I didn't know anything about basilisk before I read Harry Potter. Book two is the only one I have read before. I have run into the basilisk in a few other places since them.
It seems to be one of the more fluid mythical creatures. There are some creatures, like mermaids, that everyone has a pretty clear idea of, but the Basilisk evolved into a few other terrifying creatures so stories seem to differ about what they are like. They are very poisonous and their eyes can kill. I've read that their breath and their voices are also deadly. It is called the King of reptiles because of a crown like crest on it's head. Its size seems to be a point of disagreement. It might be a normal sized snake. In other stories it has feet and wings. But then, I guess it's called a Cockatrice. It turns people to stone with it's glance and people do indeed carry around mirrors and other reflective devises to protect themselves from it's eyes. I didn't find anything about Spiders being it's enemy. Keeping a weasel with you, as well as a rooster, might be some protection.

(side not: I found this book's climax, the scene in the Chamber of Secrets, much more satisfying than the last book. It was a more active and believable. It also relies heavily on an unexplainable magic preformed by Harry/Dumbledore but I could forgive the Phoenix for teleporting from D's office. The journal concept was cool and the destruction of it was good too. Harry's way more of a hero than in the last book.)

Mandrakes are an odd one to look up because they are a real plant. But in mythology, as far as I can tell, they are associated with fertility. They do have a cry that can kill you, are turn you to stone, but I didn't hear about them un-statuing people, or un-petrifying. I think they are entertaining, if a little disturbing in Potter.

something to keep in mind

I remember after the final book was released there was a big interview with J.K. Rowling about the series and so forth. In this Rowling said something along the lines of "the books are a push for tolerance." Without getting too deeply into the merits and demerits of the whole "tolerance" thing, I think this might shed some light on a lot of the morality displayed in the books as well as their popularity. After all, the theme is timely and a sort of cultural battle cry but perhaps not the deepest or most original of messages. But you can see it in the depiction of the Dursley's reaction to magic (irrational, suspicious, laughable), in how Hagrid is ostracized, not to mention the many other marginalized characters of the books which you will see more of as you continue through the series.

Rowling's worldview is secular (to my knowledge) and so is her writing, but she draws upon religious themes occasionally (which you will see especially in the final book). It might be interesting to trace what sort of morality Rowling is appealing to in different plot points and how it fits in with the kind of popular outlook today. My theory is that the books reflect both the strengths and weaknesses of today's secular morality. 

Being Eleven

And now it's time to hear from Zita the story geek: the part of the blog where ZitaLouise rambles about things like plot and character development that interest her, because she's a writer, and probably not to many other people.

A little background:
Whenever a writer takes you into an alternate universe, such as Middle Earth, Narnia, a galaxy far far away, or the wizard world, we have to accept her rules in order to enjoy the world. If her rules are too far fetched, we will either laugh more, or check out. We have to be able to suspend disbelief. Some authors ask us to suspend disbelief more than others. Lewis and Tolkien want us to swallow the thing whole. Others (I'm trying to think of a good example... did any of you watch the Spy Kids movies? Come to think of it... a lot of spy movies. James Bond!) are supposed to be enjoyed (and laughed at a bit) from the outside, not taken seriously from the inside. Such stories get away with some pretty wild things. People don't act like normal people, or the act in ways that are exaggerated and simplified.

The problem:
I am a little off balance in Harry Potter because I'm not sure how much to take seriously. The Dursley's are pretty laughable. They are hard to take seriously, yet we are certainly meant to take their abuse of Harry very seriously. That particular example doesn't bother me so much. Other imagination benders give me more pause.

The biggest one for me in this book is actually something of a plot problem. How is it, exactly, that three first year students manage to outwit the spells their teachers have set to protect the Sorcerer's Stone? This is especially puzzling after all the hype that was made about the bank being impossible to break into. Then the only place safer than the bank is Hogwarts, because (I assume this is the reason it's so safe) there are very good hiding places and the best wizards in the world have protected it with their spells. Then three eleven-year-olds manage to break all the spells.

So, are we supposed to just suspend disbelief? I suddenly have a very poor opinion of Hogwarts professors as competent wizards.

This is kind of the tip of the iceberg as far as the Hogwarts professors. They don't really act like normal people. They kind of act like eleven-year-olds. And this leads me to my theory.

The book is about an eleven year old boy. Perhaps the whole thing is colored by his perception of the world. Rules seem arbitrary (Hagrid is not allowed to do magic for no apparent reason), you decide quickly whose side you are on based on rather superficial characteristics (look at the descriptions of all the bad characters), you go out of your way to keep even with your enemies (Malfoy and Harry), and take care of your friends (the dragon, was that any of their business? why not just let Hagrid deal with it himself? He's supposed to be an adult, right?), and you seem to live or die on the arbitrary whim of the adults in authority over you (Snape is out to get Harry).

I know, because I am old and wise *strokes imaginary beard* that the world doesn't actually work that way. But Rowling gives us old people no nod or wink to reassure us that her world doesn't work that way. She seems to be asking us to believe that her world really does work that way.

The only trouble is that even if her world works like an eleven year old would expect it to work, they still shouldn't have been able to break the guarding spell.

This makes me think that the book is more about creating a world that is calculated to please the eleven year old. A sort of wish-fulfilment thing. The spells that Harry and his friends have to break to get to the Sorcerer's Stone are less exemplary of adult wizardry at it's best, than just exactly the sort of thing an eleven-year-old might have a little trouble with. Breaking them is a true triumph for Harry can be proud of, and his eleven-year-old fan base can be proud vicariously through him.

I am going to keep tabs on this and see what happens to the level of suspended disbelief as Harry gets older. I think that this book should have been written in the first person. If it had all been told with Harry's voice, we would simply say that he is not a reliable narrator because he is eleven years old and it would be very clever and entertaining. Not that it isn't clever and entertaining the way it is. I just have a hard time accepting her rules. The jury is still out on whether this is her fault or mine.

Random reflections on Sorcerer's Stone

I read the first few books quite a bit when I was younger, it had been a while since I read them though. I apologize for the disorganized writing, but I had more than a few thoughts.

The Dursleys’ reactions toward magic are quite cartoonish, rather comic, and hilariously mis-proportioned. The reasons seem equally ridiculous with thoughts of what would the neighbors think and such drivel. There is no glimmer of hope that they will even consider magic as a good thing or even noble. The reactions of fear, envy, and hate come from something they don’t understand and refuse to try understanding. With the attempt of forcing their brand ignorance upon Harry, they truly believe they are doing the right thing. Actually I couldn’t help thinking while reading the first few chapters that if Richard Dawkins was in Vernon Dursley’s shoes he would do the same thing. It really isn’t a kind thought, after all Vernon Dursley isn’t a glory-hound.

“Yeh don’ know what yeh are?” - Rubeus Hagrid (SS chp. 4)

This really struck me, because that is what would happen to all of us if Dawkins and his ilk had their way. We are religious creatures, always have been, it’s within each of us, even deeper than our DNA. What Dawkins and the Dursleys don’t realize is that you cannot remove something integral from a person’s being just because it makes you uncomfortable.

Well, I thought the comparison was funny.


Really what amazed me was Harry’s reactions to magic. A healthy wonder coupled with a good dose of humility. A couple humility examples: Harry at first can’t believe that he has wizardry powers, later he confides in Hagrid and Ron (on separate occasions) that he believes he’ll be terrible at wizardry, and finally he’s afraid that the sorting hat will not choose a house for him and he’ll be sent back. Even after a full year he believes that Hermione is a better wizard than himself (SS chp. 16). The only flaws in his character seem to be a tendency to break rules, and some rashness in dealing with problems. The midnight duel, the restricted section of the library, and the Mirror of Erised trips being cases where selfish reasons prevailed over honorable activity and the only punishment was being nearly eaten by Fluffy. Otherwise he is a good influence on his friends, maybe discussion on why he breaks those rules?

I enjoyed re-reading the book, and I thought too much and wrote a lot.

[SPOILER if you haven’t read SS. Just thought you ought to know.]

(Another random thing was Quirrell’s apparent affinity to vampires. I mean they talk about him meeting vampires, then the garlic, and at the last you find out he’s been drinking innocent blood for immortality, and he can’t touch Harry because love is so pure.)

I Finally did It!

So after hearing about the books for the last 12 or so years, hearing my friends talk about them, get really excited about them, counting the days till the next book came out, and not being allowed to read them as a child...I have finally done it.  I read the first Harry Potter Book.  I will have to admit, I almost didn't do it. I keep putting it off and putting it off.  I got the books from the Library the first Monday after school let out and they have been sitting by my bed begging for me to read them.  But for some reason I couldn't.  I read about 10 other books last week, but I could not bring myself to read it.  So on Tuesday, I told myself, enough is enough and I picked up the book and started to read. I finished it last night.  And it was not too bad.  I really did not know what to expect, but I enjoyed myself as I read the book.  As Paul was saying, or was it Karen, that Harry does seem to be rewarded for disobeying the rules and that is not the lesson that children need to learn.  But other then that, I really liked what I read and will start the second book soon. 

It still amazes me how something like this can almost define a generation.  Besides for my family, I really can't think of any of my other friends who have not read the books.   When my generation becomes parents, I am sure that they will tell their children that these were the most popular books when they were growing up.  And they will give them to their children for their reading pleasure.  And to think that when the last movie comes out in July...it will really be the end of an era.  Yes, there might be little things coming out.  But the books and the movies will now be complete and we will stand back and see if Harry Potter will be able to stand the test of time.  Will it be able to become a classic like the Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings are?  Only time will tell!!

Revisiting Sorcerer's Stone

So I finished Sorcerer's Stone a couple days ago and have since been mulling over a couple things.

I have not read this book in somewhere around eight to ten years, and I remember it being a lot better. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, but all my feelings are missing. For example, I remember reading it the three or four times as a kid and truly despising the Dursleys, every time. Now, their just lousy parents, kind of meh. The emotions that dramatically drew me in are no longer present. But alas, it is a children's book, and I am sadly moving farther away from childhoodship. For you new adult readers, are the plot twists predictable and the characters shallow in SS? Or do they hold your emotions sway?

On a different note. One of the criticisms I remember people having with SS is that Harry is constantly breaking rules and rarely receiving punishment. I used to disregard that, but now I'm not so sure, he does seem to get rewarded for his nonobservance of mandatory protocol. And I'm not the only one to think this, at one point Hermione even says, in reference to Harry receiving a new broom, "So I suppose you think that's a reward for breaking rules?" (SS10). So I will raise that question to the blog, does Harry get rewarded for disregarding the rules? And how may his rule breaking, with apparent lack of punishment, reflect on young readers?

Further reflections to come.

Thoughts on trees

I'm on the train writing this, though I won't post it till I get home, obviously. I just finished the book (and thanks to Ashley,) I own it so I could scribble all over it. So now I'm going through my scribbles.

One of the reasons I love Fantasy as a genre is that you can follow the rules, or you can bend them, when it comes to traditional roles of creatures, objects, ect. Obviously, since witches, (and often wizards) are usually a negative thing, Rowling is already bending the rules. I am interested to see where she deviates and where she upholds traditional symbols. I am always on the look out for devices that have history.

So...
Harry's wand...

Two feathers of a phoenix tail. The phoenix, is a symbol of both natural life, and immortality, as it lives indefinitely, but goes through a cycle of death and resurrection every few centuries. (How long is the cycle in the Harry Potter world? Anyone know? Does Professor D say in the next book?) The whole immortality thing seems to be an ongoing theme with V, and so in that Harry is so closely connected with him, I guess it's fitting for Harry to have the phoenix too.

The wood, however was what I really wanted to look up. I brought my Encyclopedia of Celtic mythology with me on the train, because you never know when you might need to look up something like this. V's wand is made of Yew. Yew is also a symbol of, you guessed it, mortality and immortality. It is traditionally planted in grave yards. It is associated with the afterlife, otherworld, and transformations, interestingly enough. There is a story about a Welsh hero who turns into an eagle at his death and makes his home in a yew tree.

Harry's wand is holly. My books traces the association with holly and Christmas to the pre-christian symbol the winter king, opposed to the summer king; the oak. For those of you who have read Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles, the winter king is Arawn, the villain in that story, if I remember rightly. But he is lord of the after life in celtic myth. "Otherworld" seems to be a positive after death experience. His rival Hafgan, the oak, fights him for power over Otherworld. And there is an especially odd story in which Arawn switches places with a human named Pwyll for a year and Pwyll, pretending to be Arawn, defeats Hargan.
Holly is the masculine counterpart to Ivy (thus, "The Holly and The Ivy").

So, I wonder if Rowling chose the holly for it's Christian association with Christmas, (the incarnation symbolizing hope for the world, a chosen one,) or if she wanted Harry associated with the Winter King, also apparently a positive symbol, though kind of an odd one. I am not going to be looking out for oak tree symbols.

:) Hagrid's wand was oak.

Harry's father had a mahogany wand, but I couldn't find anything about it. It's supposed to be good for transformations.

Harry's mother has a willow wand, "Nice for charm work." Willow is a healer in celtic folklore.

On a side note, I think I will need some help with some of these terms at some point. I get what a transformation is, but what's the difference between a charm and a spell? I get curses. And there are counter curses. What are the other magic terms. I remember trance being used. Enchantment?