Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets (spoilers)

[kate_nepveu]

Proposition: the reason that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is less interesting than the first book is that the story is mostly about someone other than Harry.

Discuss.

(Alternatively, what the heck was Bloomsbury UK thinking with the kids-version cover art for the seventh book? (See also: US version.))

ETA: I've booklogged this book & its predecessor.

Comments

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

I saw the cover art linked from metaquotes before, and... well, I can't snark better than those commenting there (Common emergent themes: Ali Baba, Stargate, Dobby... surprising Harry rather unexpectedly and unpleasantly), so I'll leave it with "What were they thinking" as well. I'd thought the US cover was weird, but comparatively it looks positively classy, and even makes you wonder about Harry's weird pose in there. (Right after an expelliarmus?)

As to the Chamber of Secrets: It's true that Harry is mostly an observer there, but I don't know that he's less of an observer in, say, Azkaban or Stone. In all three books he watches things happen, finds clues, follows clues, and in the final scene acts. Perhaps it is less interesting because it is more of a mystery than the other two---in Stone they discover the focal point is the philosopher's stone early on, in Azkaban Sirius Black is named practically on page one, but for me the Heir of Slytherin remained shadowy and somewhat confusing even after the fight with the basilisk. It was... a piece of Voldemort's soul. Who was the heir. Who was acting through Ginny. All right, then. (Of course it all made perfect sense in book six.)

Chamber is still the weakest book for my money too, but I am not sure if that was the whole reason for that feeling.

[kate_nepveu]

I think the real story in _CoS_ is *Ginny's*, which is a lot more interesting than Harry playing detective--though the mystery part is reasonably well-constructed.

In _PS_, at least he was still learning about the magical world and all.

But we'll see what I think after I listend to _PoA_.

[stormfeather.livejournal.com]

"Dobby... surprising Harry rather unexpectedly and unpleasantly"

Oh good. I'm so glad my mind's not the only one that went there. Because... yeah.

What the hell WERE they thinking?

[eruthros]

My feeling was that CoS is less interesting because it should be a descent into hell narrative, but JKR keeps defusing the tension.

That is, if PS is the story of A Boy Discovers Who He Is and What He Can Do With His Friends (and people to believe him, and teachers, and also a wand), then CoS is structurally the opposite: we strip away Harry's pleasant celebrity, stun his friend, give him an evil talent, even make him think he's going crazy. And then, at the end, he's left without Dumbledore or Hagrid, Ron ends up on the other side of a rockfall, and he's poisoned and afraid. Classic! What does Harry do when there is no-one watching? Who is he when there is nothing but himself?

And if that were the story, then I would have found it fascinating. But that's just the outline; the story keeps jumping over to a concern with Ginny, or defusing the tension around Harry's growing isolation and doubt with homework scenes and quidditch. So I want the two books to stand as parallels, right? Lift the boy out of misery and isolation, and what can he do with friends, and then drop him back down, and see who he is when he has nothing left. But the second book doesn't work that way, even if the outline looks right.

[kate_nepveu]

Hmmm! That's interesting.

The school year format really imposes odd pacing requirements, I think, and that may have sometning to do with that--it's hard to do an entire school year of just the growing tension.

I wonder if the loyalty theme might run counter to the structure you identify--Harry wins not because he conquers his own self-doubts about his nature, but because he defends Dumbledore.

[eruthros]

Yes! Exactly. It's almost that story. And I wouldn't mind if it had some other structure entirely, but it's so nearly that story that I can't help seeing it as a failed attempt at same rather than as a story about loyalty or a story about Ginny or whatever.

Also, it's the only excuse for the inclusion of poor little Harry, whose friends hate him, blahblah, Ron and Harry blah. I think I kinda wish it had succeeded as a descent narrative, because then we'd be over it: we'd know who Harry was, and what he could do, and we could stop with the "Ron thought Harry was lying to him!" "Harry and the rest of Gryffindor house were on the outs!" and whatever. Especially because I think it's annoying in most stories, but actually does induce tension in a descent narrative.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Wasn't this book two? After your version, what would be left for the next five books? And who under the age of ____ would buy them?

[kate_nepveu]

There are still plenty of external threats and quests, and there's still Harry growing up as well as understanding himself. I don't see it as being a problem.