pauraque_bk | CoS 16

Current Mood: ill
Current Music: at first I was afraid, I was petrified...

CoS 16

[EDIT: Ack, I almost forgot. Thanks to the anonymouse who gave me two months of paid time! It seems like a lot of folks have been visited by the LJ fairy recently... I wonder if it's all the same person?]

wayfairer is my hero of the day. She made a very eye-opening post about her experiences growing up a Christian fundamentalist. Not anti-Christian, but extremely surprising if you're like me and have had no exposure to that type of worldview.

Then a bit later she invited her flist to come up with at least three things they love about America. Maybe a cheap pick-me-up, but it worked on me.

And we've still got fandom.

pornish_pixies celebrates its first anniversary today! Hurrah!

CoS 16: The Chamber of Secrets

Mm, titular goodness.

'I've got to tell you something,' Ginny mumbled, carefully not looking at Harry.
'What is it?' said Harry.
Ginny looked as though she couldn't find the right words.
'What?' said Ron. (212)

She wants to tell Harry and Ron, who are close to being her peers, but is afraid to tell Percy, an authority figure. Seems to share Harry's resistance to contacting someone who might actually be able to *do* something about a problem.

'Well, er, if you must know, Ginny, er, walked in on me the other day when I was -- well, never mind -- the point is, she spotted me doing something and I, um, I asked her not to mention it to anybody. I must say, I did think she'd keep her word. It's nothing, really, I'd just rather--'
Harry had never seen Percy look so uncomfortable. (212)

BWAH! All right, this is explained later, but really now! On first reading, it's very suggestive. Or is my mind just in the gutter?

'We haven't seen [Hermione] for ages, Professor,' Harry went on hurriedly, treading on Ron's foot, 'and we thought we'd sneak into the hospital wing, you know, and tell her the Mandrakes are nearly ready and, er, not to worry.'
[...]
'That,' said Ron fervently, 'was the best story you've ever come up with.' (213-214)

And it very successfully manipulates McGonagall's emotions, not to mention that it leads them to a vital clue. I sympathize with the position that the HP books encourage kids to break the rules.

'Pipes,' he said. 'Pipes ... Ron, it's been using the plumbing. I've been hearing that voice inside the walls ...'
Ron suddenly grabbed Harry's arm.
'The entrance to the Chamber of Secrets!' he said hoarsely. 'What if it's a bathroom? What if it's in--'
'--Moaning Myrtle's bathroom,' said Harry. (216)

Back in Chapter 1,

idlerat mentioned the way this plays into the puberty imagery of the book: the symbolism of the voice in the plumbing, the serpents, the "long slimy tunnel" starting in the girls' toilets and culminating in a "chamber of secrets..." I have to agree.

'It has happened,' [McGonagall] told the silent staff room. 'A student has been taken by the monster. Right into the Chamber itself.'
Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, 'How can you be sure?' (217)

One of the all time great Ambiguous Snape Moments. What's going through his mind? Does he know this means that Riddle must be present in some form? Is he concealing a reaction of horror? Anger? (Delight, if you're an evil!Snape fan?)

Lockhart gazed desperately around him, but nobody came to his rescue. He didn't look remotely handsome any more. His lip was trembling, and in the absence of his usual toothy grin he looked weak-chinned and weedy. (218)

In Harry's world, people can't be truly handsome if they're bad, nor can they be truly ugly if they're good. I'm reminded of Sirius's physical descriptions -- when he's a homicidal maniac, he's described as horribly skeletal, with sunken black eyes, but as soon as Harry takes his side, he sees the remains of the "handsome best man" from the old photographs. Likewise, when Lockhart's cowardice is revealed, he can't be a handsome coward. Bellatrix could be an exception, but when we do meet her, her beauty has also been "ruined" by Azkaban, I believe.

This simplistic physical literalism bugs me about the books, but I'll reserve final judgment until we see what ends up happening with characters like Snape... In the event that it finally hits home for Harry that Snape isn't all bad, will he suddenly notice that his hair isn't so greasy after all? Or start calling his nose 'aquiline'? Sheesh, I hope not.

'D'you know what?' said Ron, 'I think we should go and see Lockhart. Tell him what we know. He's going to try and get into the Chamber. We can tell him where we think it is, and tell him it's a Basilisk in there.' (219)

Hm, I guess that's logical enough for a 12-year-old. But once they realize Lockhart has no intention of going into the Chamber, why don't they go and get McGonagall? Or anyone else, really? It reads as though they're hoping he comes to a bad end down in the Chamber, which of course he does, but... wow, that's harsh.

[Lockhart's] office had been almost completely stripped. Two large trunks stood open on the floor. Robes, jade green, lilac, midnight blue, had been hastily folded into one of them; books were jumbled untidily into the other. (219)

JKR probably meant his own books, but it didn't read that way right off for me. Reminded me of

fernwithy's comment that Lockhart can be read as a Ravenclaw, because "his whole life is focused around books", not real actions.

'My dear boy,' said Lockhart, straightening up and frowning at Harry. 'Do use your common sense. My books wouldn't have sold half as well if people didn't think I'd done all those things. No one wants to read about some ugly old Armenian warlock, even if he did save a village from werewolves. He'd look dreadful on the front cover. No dress sense at all. And the witch who banished the Bandon Banshee had a hare lip. I mean, come on...' (220)

Might have been nice if Harry'd taken away the lesson that looks can be deceiving, and that putting too much stock in looks isn't a good characteristic.

[Lockhart:] '[...]Then I had to put a Memory Charm on them so they wouldn't remember doing it. [...]' (220)

That, and the whole rest of the village who knew they'd done it, presumably! I like that memory modification is presented in a sinister light, although Harry *still* doesn't seem to get that there's something off about it.

The light slid over a gigantic snake skin, of a vivid, poisonous green, lying curled and empty across the tunnel floor. The creature that had shed it must have been twenty feet long at least. (224)

Twenty feet! Needless to say, the film exaggerated that by several factors.

Also, shed snake skins don't share the color of the snake -- they're the very top layer of skin, devoid of pigment. They're whitish.

Past re-read posts are here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I sympathize with the position that the HP books encourage kids to break the rules.

Oh, totally, I do, too. It really struck me when I was up at Convention Alley and one of the sessions was all about rulebreaking in the HP books. There's no question but that the kids break rules left and right in the books; there's also no question that the rule breaking is necessary for plot purposes and in most case is being done for the greater good, as well. Still. The irony involved in a group of adults trying to justify and downplay the rulebreaking while simultaneously decrying the people who criticize the books for justifying and downplaying the rulebreaking struck me over the head like a sledgehammer.

Yeah. If I had a young kid, I would be careful about introducing them to the HP books. Not only because I wouldn't want them imitating Harry's behavior, but also because GoF and OotP are too disturbing for very young children, in my opinion. I'd definitely class the books as 'young adult'.

I think they more get older with the characters. I discovered the first three books when I was in the fourth grade, and I was definitely old enough for them at that point. They were actually my second-grade brother's books, and he handled them just fine. But the more recent books, a second-grader definitely could not handle.

And this is speaking as one who was horribly precocious in the second grade, and who could read far better than her peers. But The Black Stallion Returns was still a scary book for me. I could probably have handled PoA (if it had been out), but GoF would have been too much.

In a way I think it would be a fascinating thing to read an discuss with a kid, because the whole thing is so insideous. It's tempting to just take it at face value and say, "But they have to break the rules because they're fighting Voldemort," but it'd be interesting to go further than that to get them to really think about it.

I'll bet you'd wind up with a lot of young kids arguing just the way we do in fandom.

My son, who is 9, is also a big fan of the books. We listen to them in the car all the time. I think I'm going to ask him what he thinks about it.

I wish I'd been able to attend that session. I'm fascinated, and frankly a wee bit disturbed, at JKR's attitude towards rule-breaking in this series. I understand that she's trying to teach children to think for themselves, but she so consistently applauds rule-breaking and sneers at rule-following that I have to wonder what she's doing.

This does a segue into another problem that I have with this series. The 'good' kids are applauded for doing actions that I find highly questionable: the twins' pranks, hexing Draco and his pals on the train, leaving Umbridge at the mercy of the centaurs... Had any of these actions been performed by Slytherin kids, the 'good' characters would be in an snit. What's up with that?

It was a weird session. It was mostly parents against non-parents on the rule-breaking issue, as far as I could tell.

I understand that she's trying to teach children to think for themselves, but she so consistently applauds rule-breaking and sneers at rule-following that I have to wonder what she's doing.

Indeed, the two biggest rule-enforcers (Percy and Snape) are mocked constantly for it. The entire Wizarding world tends to fudge the rules when any individual thinks they can get away with it. It makes for a very corrupt and dubiously effective government, among many other things.

Usually, Harry is sheilded from the consequences of his rule-breaking; I believe that Sirius' death is first serious consequence of Harry's action.

Speaking as a non-parent, largely rule-abiding adult ... I have always assumed that a mature person understands the purpose of rules and understands when it is okay to break rules but also when they should be followed. I don't find any balance in this series. Rule-breaking at all times is applauded.

Hmmm. Sirius' death is a consequence of his own action, surely, not Harry's. Harry may have been the catalyst, but Sirius knew that he was not supposed to leave the house.

Sirius' death is a consequence of his own action, surely, not Harry's. Harry may have been the catalyst, but Sirius knew that he was not supposed to leave the house.

I'm going a bit OT here, but I think it's fair to say that Sirius died because he was protecting Harry and his friends, the fact that he was supposed to stay at Grimmauld Place was quite irrelevant. Any of those who went after the children might just as easily have been killed.

Indeed, anyone who went to the Ministry that night to try to save the kids could have been killed.

The question I'm thinking about here is, is Sirius' death Harry's fault? Sirius' fault? Bellatrix's fault? Voldemort's? No ones?

The question I'm thinking about here is, is Sirius' death Harry's fault? Sirius' fault? Bellatrix's fault? Voldemort's? No ones?

It's not so easy to say whose fault it is, you're right. But I believe it's true that Sirius's death is a consequence of Harry's actions -- of his failure to trust the adults around him (in this case, Snape) or to consider either his abiity to handle whatever situation he might get himself and others into or the possible consequencces of his actions. I think this was the point originally made above about this being the first time Harry's actions led to serious consequences.

I think she lets the omniscient be a very Harry-perspective voice. Thus, hexing Draco's gang is good, because what kid doesn't like winning a fight against their archenemies without a scratch?

I think she's also afraid of being thought too moralizing if she has too many non-school-imposed consequences for rule-breaking, that it will seem like "Maybe it was the right thing at the time and the world would have ended if he hadn't done it but it was still a bad thing to be doing."

I maintain that the Harry Potter books suffer from first series syndrome -- SS was the first book JKR had ever published, and she's trying to keep the rest of the books roughly within the parameters of the first.

God, I hope my first books don't make it half so big . . .

I agree that the omniscient "authorial" voice is Harry-centric. That worries me even more, frankly. To me, that indicates that JKR also approves of these actions.

I appreciate that this book is about Harry, and that he and his friends celebrate their own actions, but JKR adds authorial approval in the manner in which she has structured these scenes. If she ends the series without having Harry (at minimum) learn self-control and some discernment between right and wrong, then I will be massively disappointed in her. These are influential books, but this "whee! all rule breaking is terrific!" message is not one that I'd want taught to kids.

I think the trouble is that Rowling doesn't do what children's authors are "supposed" to do, which is write Stories With Morals. She writes what it's actually like to be a kid and break rules and get away with it — not every time, but enough to think it's going to work every time. And there's a damn good reason for this: Stories With Morals are dead boring. If Harry was an obedient, considerate, conscientious, reliable, patient, kind, thoughtful, Good Little Hero, would he have a millions-strong fandom spanning all ages? Like hell!

Except the stories are exceedingly moralistic and make lots of points about right and wrong. Most of the time when the kids break the rules it's presented as a lesson in Doing Good, or at least Not So Bad Because These Are Good Kids. It's just that the moral system they suggest isn't, imo, functional at all. I think that's probably why people notice it.

It's basically a world where everybody believes that rules are things that apply to other people ("the bad guys") but nobody in the books, kids or adults, makes the connection between what they do themselves and what they rail at others for doing, or figure out that if they want justice for themselves they'd have to have a just system.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

CoS 16

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject