Bright Idea
Travis Prinzi has given me a good idea for a series. He's listening to the Harry Potter audio books and noticing things he didn't notice while reading the books the first or second (or third?) time around.
I, too, have the audio books, and I'm not embarrased to say I've listened to all six books more times than I can count. And like Travis, I've noticed certain things while listening that I overlooked or never put much thought into while reading.
Travis lists several plot points and plot holes in Chamber of Secrets. For instance, why didn't the basilisk eat the petrified students if he/she/it was so hungry, as Tom Riddle claimed? Of course, petrified students were essential to the plot, and had the students been eaten, Hogwarts surely would have closed. With a school devoid of students, lessening the dramatic tension and "who's next" suspense, Chamber of Secrets as J.K Rowling envisioned it wouldn't exist.
Hating the Dursleys
While I can suspend my disbelief for the sake of the story, some things drive me crazy. For example, remember in Chamber of Secrets when Ernie McMillan and Hannah Abbott were talking about Harry behind his back, speculating whether he was the heir of Slytherin and petrifying students? When Harry stepped out of the shadows and asked the whereabouts of Justin Finch Fletchly, Ernie offered as proof of Harry's guilt his hatred for "those Muggles" he lives with. Harry said something like, "It's impossible to live with the Dursely's and not hate them," and walked away.
Actually, that bothered me when I read the book. Why didn't he tell the group what those Muggles did to him all his life to earn that hatred? The ill treatment? The bullying? The lies? Harry wouldn't have to say much to make a good case for hating the Dursleys. Any reasonable person growing up being treated as badly as Harry would hate them.
The only reason I can think of why Rowling would write the scene that way is for Harry to remain the persecuted, ostracized orphan boy misunderstood by his peers and adults alike. This may not be a plot hole per se, but it's one of those things that bother me.
That was fun. Thanks, Travis! In my next post, I'll blog about a couple of irritating plot holes in Prisoner of Azkaban.
Update (4/6) — How did I fail to mention this GIGANTIC plot point: The whole "Tom Riddle's diary" mess could have been avoided if only Dumbledore had told Harry and everyone else that Tom Riddle is/was Lord Voldemort. Had Dumbledore shared this info with the wizarding community, Ginny would not have been fooled by the diary and subsequently possessed by Voldemort, and Harry would not have been lured in by it.
But, of course, the plot of Chamber of Secrets revolves around Tom Riddle's diary, doesn't it? If everyone knew who Riddle was, there would be no Chamber of Secrets as Rowling wrote it.
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
April 5th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Actually, the omission makes sense to me. Why would Harry feel the need to explain himself to people talking behind his back? I wouldn't waste my time, either.
Plus, it's a short book. Plus, Harry explaining himself would've resolved the conflict, and dispelled some tension. Rowling is all about tension.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Yeah, I know. It's not that he has to convince them. But it would have been so easy for Harry to douse water on the rumor that he hates Muggles and therefore tried to kill Muggle-borns by explaining what he meant about hating the Dursley's.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I have to agree with Jared. Harry could have explained himself, yes, but he obviously resented the idea that there was any reason to.
And I' m not so sure that it would have ended the rumor anyway. The fact that he has good reason to hate the Dursleys might simply make people believe that he hates all Muggles because some treated him badly. Folks have been known to think that way.
Dumbledore's various omissions seem to have caused a lot of trouble, don't they? He's been extremely secretive throughout the series. Perhaps there is more here than we yet know about…
April 11th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I can't call up a specific on the spot, but I believe there have been a number of times where I would have Harry do or say something different in that kind of situation. I don't think that automatically makes it a plot hole. I think the human shortcomings of Harry and gang and perhaps even Dumbledore are part of the richness of the HP series.
On the other hand, what did the basilisk eat? Even allowing for some kind of extreme hibernation over multiple years seems like it would have needed something substantial at some point.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Do basilisks eat what they've petrified or do they need something–er–softer? Just wondering.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
One of the things that I have gotten about Harry's character (and it may just be projection) is that his sense of honor doesn't allow him to easily place blame on others. It's part of the relationship between he and Draco. Harry would rather prove himself by succeeding than by some adult intervening in his favor.
Harry does have that hero complex that Hermione and Ron have accused him of. He wants to win, not be a rat.
My take, for what it's worth…
April 30th, 2007 at 6:59 am
I think the reason he doesn't go into detail about his home life is he's British. Most Brits I know don't go about parading the intimate details of their lives to acquaintances. It's part of their culture. They're happy to dig dirt on public figures like the royals or soccer stars, but they don't go on national TV and talk about how abusive their parents were.
Regarding Tom Riddle: I just chalk that up to the overprotectiveness of the previous generations. Dumbledore is quite old, and Harry and his friends must look like babies to him. Why inflict the nastiness of the world on such babes? You saw that with Order of the Phoenix. It's frustrating as heck, especially since we know it's more dangerous for the kids to be uninformed, but there you have it.
Still love the series though….
May 1st, 2007 at 6:04 am
Er, not my usual territory this- but as a Brit I have to agree with Mary above on the reason Harry doesn't go into details. It's the famous reticence. Part of the glamour (Brit sp.) of Harry is that his judgement is much deeper than the rest. It would be exhausting and self-defeating for Harry to explain everything to the less able ones. Rowling knows her man, and Harry doesn't need a shoulder to cry on.
As I remember, I rather enjoyed that little touch of reticence- the authentic Brit public school atmosphere wouldn't be complete without it.
May 5th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I'm not a Brit, I'm a Southerner. We don't talk about our family problems to outsiders. It might be OK to say that Mama sure was mad last night or Daddy punished me, but you simply don't go washing family linen in public. And whining is such an unmanly thing to do. One of the most egregious things about modern culture is the constant damn whining. I compare Rowling to C.S. Lewis. I love The Magician's Nephew. Uncle Andrew is truly a creep. Digby doesn't tattle on him; he defeats the old snake.