I need a Harry Potter history lesson

[Alidar Jarok]

Last time I read Chamber of Secrets, I was struck by how relevant a lot of its plot was to the rest of the series. It's my least-favorite story of the seven, but I enjoyed it quite a bit more re-reading it, knowing how everything ended up.

Oh yeah, it fits quite well. Actually, all the books fit well with each other. Little pieces that seemed to have little point when introduced end up being central later.

As far as the first couple books feeling childish. I read the first three books somewhere between ages 12 and 14. Then I read them as released. In many ways, I aged with Harry. So the books always fit my level of maturity and interest.

 

[Lt. Trull]

YA'all should try audio books.... Audio books make the story a whole lot more interesting....

 

[Gaith]

In stark contradiction to the shown flashbacks, in which he's always creepy at best.

That's true. I'll attempt some fan-speculation and say that, perhaps, the creepy memories were colored by what Slughorn and Dumbledore knew later on in life? As in, their memories are slightly altered by knowing now that Voldemort is "teh eeevuhl"? Maybe? Too much of a stretch?

Not at all, that's quite sensible - though I very much doubt that it was intended. They reflect Rowling's obvious views of Voldy quite faithfully.

No, he wasn't abused as a child; he was the bully at the orphanage.

Bullies don't bully unless they've been abused in some way, by neglect at the very least, so it amounts to the same thing. Either way, Rowling was right to give Riddle an unhappy childhood.

And, no, it wasn't predestined; that people make their own choices is one of the main themes of the whole series, it's what separates Harry and Voldemort.

Aye, but apart from being a rather banal theme, it's one that comes and goes at the author's pleasure and convenience, and if you can't see that, you're either not reading carefully enough or you're deluding yourself. From an excellent essay by one Daniel Hemmens:

Even further proof that Harry's goodness is nothing to do with his actions - or indeed even his personality - but is instead some kind of elemental property comes from this rather interesting quote, regarding the fact that Voldemort had hope of salvation:

"Because he had taken into his body this-- this drop of hope or love (Harry's blood). So that meant that if he could have mustered the courage to repent, he would have been okay. But, of course, he wouldn't. And that's his choice."​

Now there's two interesting things here. The first is that Voldemort's hope came literally from Harry's blood. Voldemort is not a person, Harry is not a person. Harry is a vessel full of Hope and Love in distilled form. No matter how many people he tortures or brutalises, he will always have Hope and Love in his very blood. It is physical contact with Harry's blood that gave Voldemort his one chance of redemption.

The second, subtler point is this one:

"But, of course, he wouldn't. And that's his choice."​

Notice that she uses the words "of course" and "his choice" in the same sentence. And this is the point I find most interesting.

If you ever try to argue that JK Rowling is a slavering determinist, people always pull out two facts. Firstly, there's the fact that Harry "chose" not to be placed in Slytherin. Secondly, there's this extremely interesting line by Dumbledore.

"It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."​

Now I hope it doesn't look like I'm being obsessive here, but I think it's extremely telling that Dumbledore uses the phrase "show what we truly are" and not " say "decide what we become." Dumbledore is telling us, quite clearly, that who we are never changes, that the decisions we make in our lives serve only to illuminate our natures, which are otherwise immutable.

So Voldemort could never have been redeemed. He was given the chance to "try for some remorse" but there was never any realistic expectation that he would be able to. Indeed we are told repeatedly throughout the series that Voldemort is not capable of love. Not that he hasn't known love, that he has never experienced love, that he is literally incapable of it.

 

[RoJoHen]

Last time I read Chamber of Secrets, I was struck by how relevant a lot of its plot was to the rest of the series. It's my least-favorite story of the seven, but I enjoyed it quite a bit more re-reading it, knowing how everything ended up.

I actually noticed this today while re-watching the movie. I was particularly surprised by the apparent crush that Ginny has on Harry so early on, which doesn't really get touched upon again until "Order of the Phoenix" when Harry expresses interested in Cho.

Also, obviously, Tom Riddle's diary is a Horcrux, a fact we won't learn until four films later. The diary always did seem odd to me the first time around (where did it come from? why can Voldemort use it come back to life?). The Horcrux explains all of this. Who did he kill to make it, I wonder? Moaning Myrtle?

In addition to all that, I find watching the adult characters very interesting in the early movies, particularly Snape. I wonder if the Order of the Phoenix had been realized in Rowling's mind yet when these early stories were made, because I have to assume that Snape was a member of the Order at the time.

And what about people like Lucius? Did they know he was formerly a Death-eater? Shouldn't he be in Azkaban? When Draco first appears at Hogwarts in the first movie, Professor Macgonagall gives him a look like she knows exactly who he is and what his father had been a part of.

For that matter, why are any of the former Death Eaters allowed to be free? Snape is a teacher at Hogwarts, and that one big Russian dude from "Goblet of Fire" is in charge of a whole other school! I realize he gave up information to the Ministry, which earned him a free pass from Azkaban, but why was he then given a position of such authority?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

In addition to all that, I find watching the adult characters very interesting in the early movies, particularly Snape. I wonder if the Order of the Phoenix had been realized in Rowling's mind yet when these early stories were made, because I have to assume that Snape was a member of the Order at the time.

And what about people like Lucius? Did they know he was formerly a Death-eater? Shouldn't he be in Azkaban? When Draco first appears at Hogwarts in the first movie, Professor Macgonagall gives him a look like she knows exactly who he is and what his father had been a part of.

There's a fantastic scene at the end of Book Four, Goblet of Fire, that's missing from the movie. In it, the Order gathers around Harry's hospital bed. Snape is there and Dumbledore says to him, something to the effect of, "You know what you have to do." In the book, Snape becomes pale and then heads off to rejoin the Death Eaters. It's a fantastic moment, signaling old allies coming together, despite whatever rivalries might exist. Why it's absent from the film, I have no idea. But it clearly demonstrates Snape's longstanding membership as a double-agent of the Order.

As for Lucius, the books make it clear that, once Voldemort was stopped by Harry, Lucius claimed that everything he had done during the first reign of terror had been because he'd been cursed -- that he'd been made to act evil. Since no proof could be brought against him, he'd been allowed to go free. Ditto for a number of former Death Eaters (Bellatrix and those in Azkaban were more than happy to openly proclaim their continued allegiance to Voldemort, something he praises after his "resurrection"). But McGonagall, as a member of the Order, knew the truth about Lucius (even if she couldn't quite prove it).

 

[RoJoHen]

See, this is why they need to make a prequel movie! To answer all of my questions!

 

[Gaith]

The main plot of the book, which was the history of Voldemort was a lot more interesting.

That may be, but when you only have 2 hours to tell a Harry Potter story, you kind of have to make him and his friends the center of attention.

Well, that was Rowling's big dilemma, post-GoF: she could either keep enlarging the universe, and follow up on the promised internationalism of GoF's conclusion, or she could maintain her messianic focus on Harry and his two disciples at the exclusion of the rest of her constructed world. We all know what choice she made there, and the price of her continued laser-focus on Harry was a need to all but freeze narrative momentum by giving us large info dumps on Voldy's past that we really didn't need. Thus, in HBP, you have present-day soap operatics and flashbacks of great import. I'd hardly call her DH plot a storytelling success, but at least the trio was finally doing something again.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, Half Blood Prince is an odd story. I remember the scenes of Voldemort's past and the relationship scenes quite well and I thought they were both good. I can't for the life of me remember much about the rest of the plot besides the unbreakable promise and consequences.

 

[McCoy]

See, this is why they need to make a prequel movie! To answer all of my questions!

Or you could read the books that have already been written.

As for the rushed storytelling in HBP and DH, it does seem that way to me too. Like Rowling realized that she still had a lot of info to dump and only a limited amount of time to do so. As for the method of telling the story, it has to continue to be told through Harry's eyes, and for a tale with so much history that's a tough challenge.

 

[RoJoHen]

See, this is why they need to make a prequel movie! To answer all of my questions!

Or you could read the books that have already been written.

Nah, this thread is actually answering all my questions just fine.

Besides, I don't think I'd really want a prequel if Alan Rickman couldn't play Snape.

 

[propita]

So Voldemort could never have been redeemed. He was given the chance to "try for some remorse" but there was never any realistic expectation that he would be able to. Indeed we are told repeatedly throughout the series that Voldemort is not capable of love. Not that he hasn't known love, that he has never experienced love, that he is literally incapable of it.

So, if one is literally incapable of a having a specific trait, can they be faulted for not exhibiting that trait? Is it really their fault?

I got into something similar (but opposite?) in a “Philosophy of Tolkien” class, where my professor said that he didn’t think that Faramir was unfairly credited with being “good,” since he could not even be tempted by the Ring (the trait in question). I argued that this was an unfair dismissal and made an analogy: If the professor had a child who was a pianist prodigy, would he dismiss her playing as an inborn trait, as he was dismissing Faramir’s innate ability to resist the Ring?

Regardless of Voldemort’s actions, if he was literally unable to have any love or hope, is it his fault for not having it?

I can understand that it would be to Harry’s credit for exhibiting hope and love, despite the fact that he has/is it, because--well, IF--he has a choice between exhibiting it or not. But one cannot exhibit a trait they never possessed.

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm not sure about "never possessed", but during the time frame in question, Riddle was certainly incapable of it-- he'd hacked off large chunks of his soul and stashed them here and there. That's certainly going to leave you incapable of certain things. The most pitiable thing is that Riddle was probably so emotionally crippled that he didn't even realize anything was wrong.

But yes, it's still his fault. If Riddle cannot be redeemed for his actions, it's still because he turned his back on redemption. He maimed himself this way deliberately, committing deliberate acts of murder to accomplish it. He may not have realized the personal cost, but that loss was neither incidental nor accidental.

 

[C_Miller]

This is a really interesting conversation, but I wonder if it's almost too in-depth for a character that is essentially a non-character. Voldemort is not written to be three dimensional, he's written to be a plot device and a metaphor. The scratched up side to Harry's two faced coin. Everything that happened to Harry, happened to Voldemort. For all we know, even Tom Riddle had a Ron and Hermione, but he was already so bitter and jaded that he looked past them. Sadly, that's the extent of his character as written in the books. I would have liked a sense that he could be redeemed, but didn't take it, but I never got that. My favorite villains in any thing are characters like Ben Linus, Dukat, Sylar, Weyoun, ect. Characters that aren't mustache twirlers. Voldemort and all the Death Eaters really were mustache twirlers. Thankfully they got fantastic actors who made them more three dimensional.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Actually, I disagree. Voldemort began to have some depth in Chamber of Secrets and this was really fleshed out in Half-Blood Prince. His fear of death is something that existed as a defining character trait since the beginning (Vol de Mort is really shitty French for what's supposed to be "flight from death").

 

[CaptainCanada]

Yeah, I think he's reasonably well-defined, if not especially complex. His backstory as given in HBP (particularly the stuff relating to his mother's history) is really good stuff.

 

[C_Miller]

I'll have to re-read the stories, which I planned on doing this winter break anyways. I'm very open to changing my mind, but while he did show a bit more depth than say early comic book villains, he never had that Ben Linus moment or Darth Vader moment where you felt bad for him. You want him to fail, but when he does, you end up seeing how great they could have been if they had made the choices that John Locke did or Luke Skywalker did.

His history is deep, but in the present, he is the embodiment of evil. Which works for what it was, but as a storyteller, it's not something that I try to do with my villains.

 

[Deckerd]

I would love to be able to see the movies without knowing the books, so I slightly envy you actually. I'd love to know how they work as a separate product.

That would be me then. Years and years ago someone lent me an HP book but it was a children's book and I didn't get past the first page.

I only discovered HP films this year when someone lent us a set of the DVDs. I was pleasantly surprised by them and thought they were all very good except for the Goblet of Fire. Their strength as far as I can see is the cast, since most movies are stuffed with special effects nowadays. On the downside I think the stories come across as confused but maybe that's because a lot has to be trimmed for the movie format.

 

[label]

That would be me then. Years and years ago someone lent me an HP book but it was a children's book and I didn't get past the first page.

Yeah, it wasn't until the first movie or two was made and I saw them that I decided to read the books. The first two books are pretty rough in places (boring, childish, etc) and it really takes knowing that by the third book things take a hard left turn into quality fiction with a bit more depth to justify getting through the first two books. However, by time I finished reading the third book I was pretty engrossed......by the time I finished the fourth I was completely hooked.

Suffice to say, if you can read the first two books in a couple sittings just to get through them, it really takes off from there into some very nicely written fantasy.

 

[RoJoHen]

Perhaps one day I will give the books another go, since people do seem to really enjoy them. However, my list of books to read is significantly huge, so it'll be a while before I get to them anyway.

 

[label]

Perhaps one day I will give the books another go, since people do seem to really enjoy them. However, my list of books to read is significantly huge, so it'll be a while before I get to them anyway.

I'm right there with you. I have at least 12 books queued up to read right now. Currently reading "Under the Dome" (S. King) which has been reasonably entertaining so far.

My plan is to reread the Potter series starting in March/April of 2011 right before the last movie comes out, though that inevitably detracts from my overall enjoyment of the movie since the movies leave a lot out and suffer by comparison to the books quality.