Thread II: A Catholic Homeschooling Father Reads Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets

Gloria Romanorum blog ^ | 8/20/07 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

Having read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, I dove into Book 2, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets anxious to see where J. K. Rowling was going to take the story. I also wanted to see if my criticisms of the first book would stand up or get flattened as the story progressed.

Well, as for the story line, it really wasn’t a whole lot different from the first book. A mystery is introduced: the Chamber of Secrets has been opened by the mysterious Heir of Slytherin and whatever was locked in the Chamber has been attacking, but not killing, certain students who are not of pure magical blood. Harry and his friends sleuth around to figure out the mystery, breaking a myriad of school rules in the process and nearly (of course) getting expelled. When Hermione is attacked, Hogwarts is on the point of shutting down for good. It’s up to Harry, Ron, and the famous but useless Professor Gilderoy Lockhart to discover where the Chamber of Secrets is located and defeat the evil that lurks within.

I have to say I enjoyed reading this installment in the series quite a bit less than the previous book. The character of the self-promoting Gilderoy Lockhart, while resonating with the publisher in me, was too overdone to be funny--like a Monty Python skit that is shown over and over again until all the humor is thoroughly beaten out of it. Also in this category was the scene with Ron vomiting up slugs. Several pages of such imagery is more than enough for even the most scatologically-inclined juvenile reader.

On the other hand, I did like the character of Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister. In fact, I think that a lot of homeschool families would find the Weasleys very sympathetic. They've got seven kids--six boys and a girl. They're poor, so their forced to make due with hand-me-down robes and second-hand wands. And they're ridiculed by their social "betters" for their financial straights. The fact that Ron and his brothers are quick to resort to fisticuffs rather than hear their family demeaned may also resonate with some.

One thing that particularly irritated me about The Chamber of Secrets was the introduction of some alternate history taken directly from wicca 101. "Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago by the four greatest witches and wizards of the time," the ghost of Professor Binns lectures. "They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution" (pg. 150). I've heard similar nonsense bandied about by real, modern, historically-challenged wiccans, so when I saw this, I just shook my head. Not good. To my eye, this looked like a seed planted by Rowling and it seemed to substantiate Amy Welborn's observation:

"There's only one reason the Harry Potter books are in the least bit controversial. Just one. Wicca. That's it. If we didn't have this ridiculous little "religion" bustling around, forming "covens" in dorm rooms and getting army chaplains, I doubt one parent in a million would even think to waste even a minute being concerned about these books."

But it is a concern. For the record, there is an excellent article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that gives a capsule scholarly history of witchcraft from the Catholic perspective and it is very effective in debunking wicca and its ridiculous alternate history. I hope that the future books in the series do not contain other such seeds--I'll certainly be looking for them.

The Chamber of Secrets also elaborates upon the differences between the magically inclined and those poor benighted creatures known as Muggles--that is, anyone who is "normal" and non-magical. In Rowling's world, there are those among the magical who despise the "Mudbloods"--anyone who is magical but from a Muggle family--and those good magic-users who are tolerant of Muggles, no matter how awful and nasty they may be. There seems to be an obvious intent on Rowling's part to make this a lesson in tolerance somehow, but it seems peculiarly elitist to me. Even the magical beings who tolerate the Muggles still, for them most part, look down on them as curious and generally pathetic creatures in need of study. One could easily imagine a book of poetry in the Hogwart's library containing "The Magical Man's Burden." I'm curious to see where this tangent ends up in the future books.

The climax of the book was also subpar. The horrible creature in the Chamber of Secrets is fairly inept. It kills no one (and the reasons given for this are ludicrous) and is eventually destroyed almost by accident. Though Harry is the hero, he seems to survive his deadly encounters almost completely by luck and the intervention of an "eye-in-the-sky"--all of which makes you wonder why the "eye-in-the-sky" didn't just deal with the problem in the first place.

I've heard it said that Chamber of Secrets is the weakest of the Potter books. Having read only the previous one, I can't comment on that, yet. However, it was certainly weaker than Sorcerer's Stone. The book also did little to quell my criticisms of the original book. Indeed, it enhanced them and added a few new ones. We'll see where all this leads in book three.

[Claud]

Every time she brings up a new creature, I think to myself, Monster Manual, 3HD, 1-8 hp damage per attack.

ROFL

[Claud]

Rephrase the whole statement to avoid the linking verb. (When I get in a really bad mood, I torture my children by making them write without linking verbs.)

LOL...ahh, that sounds exactly like the editing job I'm working at right now. Can't figure it out, completely avoid the problem!! ;)

When I'm in a really bad mood, I just point out that since grammarians get their rules from usage and noted authors, I should be telling them what to do and not the other way around!

[Claud]

started in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church was ascendant when pretty much every ancient pagan culture made the practice of sorcery an offense deserving death.

Oh, they LOVE when you point that out!!! :D

[Antoninus]

Antoninus, your new tagline has subject-verb disagreement.

Wrong! My new tagline had a subject-verb disagreement.

You're on a role today!

Kaiser, judging by your demands for ruthless grammatical efficiency.

[Antoninus]

The greatest gift ARE siblings? You have a singular subject and a plural "object" connected by "be". You can avoid the problem by pluralizing "gifts" but let's suppose you want to keep it singular.

When one has a linking verb, is there a rule for which word is the subject and which is the predicate nominative? If so, I've never heard it. I just pluralized everything. Hopefully, that will satisfy the grammar gestapo. :-)

[ArrogantBustard]

Careful, there ... you're ruffling my feathers.

It'll take me simply hours to get them all preened again!

Why, you have no idea what a chore it is ...

[Claud]

I think the one after the verb is the predicate nominative.

[Tax-chick]

I’m not demanding efficiency, or even correctness ... just mildly suggesting.

Speaking of efficiency, another fun composition exercise (fun for the instructor :-) is to tell the student to reduce the length of the composition by half, without leaving out any content!

[Antoninus]

I think the one after the verb is the predicate nominative.

That's what I thought. So technically, my original construction was correct. Lotta hufflepuff over nothing...

[Antoninus]

Speaking of efficiency, another fun composition exercise (fun for the instructor :-) is to tell the student to reduce the length of the composition by half, without leaving out any content!

Too bad nobody had JKR do that for Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Claud]

I thought it was ok. But I’m a bit antinomian when it comes to grammar. :)

[Tax-chick]

You turned "gift" into a plural noun with the singularis pluribus charm?

[Claud]

Speaking of efficiency, another fun composition exercise (fun for the instructor :-) is to tell the student to reduce the length of the composition by half, without leaving out any content!

That's an excellent idea. Most people (myself included) get caught up in putting tons of words on the page instead of being concise.

[Antoninus]

I thought it was ok. But I’m a bit antinomian when it comes to grammar. :)

From now on, I'm writing all my essays in the aorist, middle voice, and sprinkling them liberally with ablative absolutes.

[Antoninus]

You turned "gift" into a plural noun with the singularis pluribus charm?

Something like that.

[Tax-chick]

Too bad nobody had JKR do that for Prisoner of Azkaban.

I don't entirely agree. It's true that it goes on and on, and that the essential events could have been covered much more efficiently. However, I found plenty of the "filler" material entertaining, and I'm sure other readers enjoyed parts that didn't interest me.

[Tax-chick]

I learned this trick from a composition teacher in high school. Almost anything can be cut by a third, if not by half.

[Tanniker Smith]

Chamber of Secrets almost seems to be a continuation of Sorceror's Stone rather than a separate book. As a sometimes writer, I was impressed at how things are foreshadowed in the first book that show up in the second. A poorer writer might've discovered Harry's ability to talk to snakes in book two rather than book one.

Likewise, both Ginny and Myrtle (as well as Myrtle's bathroom) play big parts in this book but were introduced in the first one. And a basilisk is a standard creature from fantasy which resembles a snake (fitting in with the overall theme) and having the power to turn someone to stone. (Medusa, with her snakes, had a similar power. Pity Ms. Rowling left her out of it.)

Overall, the story was weaker and I wish the director of the movie had done a partial rewrite and told more of the film from Ginny's POV.

You'll be in for a treat with Book #3. It's a definite improvement over the second, and has more surprises dealing with characters that we already know or have heard of.

[Antoninus]

You'll be in for a treat with Book #3. It's a definite improvement over the second, and has more surprises dealing with characters that we already know or have heard of.

Yep. I'm actually enjoying #3 a lot more than #2.

[Antoninus]

I don't entirely agree. It's true that it goes on and on, and that the essential events could have been covered much more efficiently. However, I found plenty of the "filler" material entertaining, and I'm sure other readers enjoyed parts that didn't interest me.

Also, I'm sure that by the time #3 was in production, there was less pressure from the publisher to keep the page count down. They just slapped a big price tag on it and knew that millions people would buy it regardless.