← Quidditch in Space: A Late April Fool’s Joke Hog’s Head PubCast #22: Resurrection →

Chamber of Secrets: Plotpoints and Plotholes (?)

April 4th, 2007 · 23 Comments · Chamber of Secrets

I’ve just finished listening to Chamber of Secrets again. On the whole, I’ve found that I agree with the Eating Words blog - this book is much more enjoyable in light of Half-Blood Prince. In fact, I think Philosopher’s Stone is now my least favorite, and Chamber has moved up a notch. Here are a collection of plotpoints and possible plot holes [Update: I’m never doing a “plot holes” post again unless I actually think before writing. :) ] :

Plotpoints:

  • Scarcrux?: This book contains enough to keep the “scar as horcrux” theory alive in my mind, even if I’m overall inclined against it. The reference to Riddle’s name on the diary as an old friend from childhood, all the discussion regarding the scar in the book in light of the fact that we now know what the diary was, the comment made by Dumbledore that Voldemort put a little of himself in Harry…it’s all pretty heavy stuff. I’m still not sold on scarcrux, primarily for Dumbledore reasons (he would have told Harry…), but I’m not entirely ruling it out, either. See Felicity’s thoughts contra scarcrux in the comments.
  • Legilimency: What we now know about Legilimency sheds new light on a re-read of the books. When Dumbledore asked Harry if there was anything he wished to tell him, was he performing Legilimency as Harry’s mind filed through things he didn’t want to tell Dumbledore? I’m inclined against it, since I don’t think Dumbledore is the kind to invade minds like that unless he absolutely has to. But Legilimency does put a spin on things, doesn’t it?
  • Head of Hogwarts?: I think this book contributes to answering the question, “Will McGonagall be Headmistress in the final book?” In light of CoS, I’m inclined to say, “no.” When Dumbledore was suspended, Draco (I think) talked about how McGonagall was only serving temporarily, and that if Dumbledore didn’t return, they’d find someone else. Of course, that could just be Draco arrogantly assuming things. And McGonagall is Deputy Headmistress.
  • McGonagall’s Big Mistake: One hopes if she is headmistress in Book 7 that she doesn’t make the kind of blunder she made in CoS. When the mandrakes were almost ready, she made an announcement to the entire school that the petrified students would be awake later that evening, and one might be able to identify the attacker. This is a silly thing to say to a group of students, among which the attacker might be! Certainly it was McGonagall’s announcement (and Ginny’s subsequent writing about it in her diary) that caused Riddle to act that very day.

Plot holes:

Just for the record, I’m not noting the plot holes to poke at Rowling’s writing. She’s a genius. But Lewis was a genius and had his own plot holes as well. And writing a series this detailed is bound to have its mistakes. She’s still put together a brilliant story.  In some of these cases, I may just be missing something that you can correct, and please do so in the comments.  Update: Good insights in the comments have resolved a few of these questions quite well.

  • Why no lie?: Why didn’t Harry lie to Dobby when he demanded that he say he wouldn’t return to Hogwarts? Harry has had no trouble lying before. Perhaps this isn’t a plot hole - just a bad judgment on Harry’s part. See Johnny’s comments below on why Harry didn’t lie.
  • No Lunch for Snake?: The petrification of the students seems like a rather gaping plot hole to me. If the basilisk’s job was to kill the students, and the basilisk claimed to be “so hungry for so long,” why did it not eat the students after petrifying them? Did it just say, “Dang it! It’s only petrified! Well, better go back to my lair”? Anyone got a good explanation for this one? Resolved in the comments!
  • Aragog’s Knowledge: If Aragog was hatched and grew under young Hagrid’s care, how would he have known not only to be afraid of the basilisk, but that acrumantulas do not speak of it at all, preventing him from telling Hagrid the identity of the monster? The parallel here between the Acromantula-Basilisk fear and the Wizard-Voldemort fear was even made by Rowling in the book, yet Harry did not know to be afraid of Voldemort’s name. That seems to be an overlooked point on Rowling’s part. Resolved in the comments!
  • Tell McGonagall!: I think the point that most irritated me this time ’round was Harry and Ron’s change of plans about telling McGonagall the location of the chamber. They were all set to tell her, and then they overheard that Ginny had been taken. At that point, most of us would have felt a greater urge to tell someone, to get something done as quickly as possible. Instead, they spend the entire afternoon sulking in the common room, wondering what to do. They finally settle on telling Lockhart, whom they both believe to be a fraud anyway. Makes no sense. It was necessary for Rowling’s plot, but it’s a gaping hole, in my opinion. Some good thoughts in comments. 
Share and Enjoy:
  • e-mail
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Technorati
  • NewsVine
  • LinkedIn
  • Fark

Tags:

23 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Kjetil KringlebottenNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    One thing that I found funny, was that Nearly Headless Nick (or Sir Nicholas de Mimsy Porpington) told Peeves to make a racket so that Harry could get out of trouble (dripping mud all over the floor). When Filch came bakc, he said something like this: “that vanishing cabinet was very old!”

    I found that very funny.

  • 2 SpiderNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Reading all interactions with Snape after knowing about Legilmancy makes most of those scenes *verrry* different. From the very first book Harry says he has the uneasy feeling that Snape can read minds, and everytime Snape gets angry at hearing a lie, I feel more sympathetic.

    Regarding your plot holes — I think Rowling is going along the lines of instinct. No one teaches a spider *anything*, they are not social animals with parental care, yet they all know how to build webs and what to eat. So a magical spider would clearly know what animals to fear and not to speak of. :)

    And they didn’t tell McGonagall because they feared being punished or disbelieved. Lockhart, on the other hand, had just been TOLD to pursue the creature in the Chamber of Secrets, and they thought he was actually going to do so.

  • 3 SpiderNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    I agree with your two other plot holes, though. I wanted him to lie to Dobby the whole time, and the basilisk as monster serpent who eats spiders and petrifies humans just made no sense to me. A basilisk is real life is an insect-eating lizard, but merging this with the turn-to-stone-giant-snake myth just seems sorta weird.

  • 4 ErinNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    re: Basilisk Lunch-or not.

    I could be wrong on my mythology here, but I seem to remember reading that dragons don’t need to eat all the time, which is why Smaug, in The Hobbit for example, didn’t just chow down on the nearby villagers. Perhaps the basilisk is the same way. Besides, it seems that it was subsisting on something; rats and stuff if the little skeletons Harry and Ron landed on were any indication. Or maybe the basilisk doesn’t like the taste of humans. Remember it didn’t eat Moaning Myrtle when it had the chance.

    As for the trio not telling McGonagall, that may be unconscious avoidance on their part. Just the last year in PS/SS they had attempted to tell McGonagall what they knew someone was going to try to steal the Stone, but she didn’t listen. Perhaps they thought she’d ignore them again.

  • 5 Fantasy Fiction for Christians: Christian themes and symbolism in Narnia and Harry Potter // Apr 4, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Plot Hole: Hating the Dursleys…

    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…

  • 6 LMBNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    About that hungry snake, let’s suspend our disbelief. Petrified students, not dead students, were essential to the plot. Had the students been eaten, Hogwarts likely would have closed. Quoting my own blog: “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.”

  • 7 seriously_blackNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that the Basilisk was in the control of Riddle, who was pursuing a very specific agenda.

    The first time the Chamber was opened, Riddle sincerely didn’t want the School to close - and in fact he sealed the Chamber and framed Hagrid in order to ensure that it would not.

    When working through Ginny in CoS, the objective was almost certainly not to close the School - or at least not immediately. Moreover care would have been taken to ensure that the Basilisk was not spotted or “caught” in the act. Once the existence of the Basilisk and the entrance to the Chamber was discovered, the game would be up - and the perpetrator may well be exposed also. So the Basilisk’s excursions outside Myrtle’s bathroom would presumbly have been handled with great caution by Riddle on both occasions. Myrtle’s death was almost certainly not intended by Riddle (who probably thought the bathroom was empty) and at least some of the petrifications in CoS seem to have been more by accident than by design.

    Whatever the Basilisk may have been muttering to itself while making its way through the plumbing, perhaps it is not so surprising that it did not get close enough to chew on any students in its few preliminary outings on either occasion.

    However that may be beside the point, since I do not think that the Basilisk is intended to represent a mortal creature with conventional appetites. Rather, I suspect it is a creature which operates more in the realm of spirit (as do others in Rowlings WW, including Dementors and Boggarts) and that its existence has a magical and analogous/metaphysical aspect rather than being purely tangible and literal. That’s not to say it is not real within the frame of reference of the series - but that it may exist on a different plane from more mundane creatures.

    If that’s the case, we might suppose that the Basilisk may feed on people’s metaphysical being (eg their soul) first and foremost rather than on their physical/tangible form (eg their body). It may satisfy itself with their death, not their meat - in which case, its talk of feeding may be taken as metaphor. This would be consitent with the fact that it is the Basiisk’s gaze - even before its venom - that is deadly - instantly removing (swallowing up?) the life force from the hapless victim. This act alone may satisfy the appetite of such a creature.

  • 8 ReyhanNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Yeah, I agree with S_B: the basilisk wasn’t hungry. Not for kiddie fritters, anyways.

  • 9 FelicityNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    As for Harry’s seeming to recall the name T.M. Riddle, it was in CS when he was looking at the diary, I think the explanation is that Riddle had placed a charm on the book so that whatever student it got planted on would feel a connection to it, would not want to let it go, and would eventually start writing in it, which would trigger the magic that would allow the memory/soul to become corporeal again. Harry carried it around with him for quite a while before writing in it, and he only did that after an accident in which he witnessed the ink disappear piqued his curiosity. After all, Riddle knew the diary was going to be planted on an unsuspecting student, and there would be no guarantee that the student he wanted to plant it on would be inclined to write in a diary.

    Most telling for me is that when Harry was experiencing the memory of the framing of Hagrid, he didn’t recognize Tom Riddle at all. He had no trace memory that led him to recognize Riddle’s physical appearance or voice to even the slightest degree, yet Harry quickly recognized the 50-year-younger Dumbledore and knew Hagrid’s voice was familiar even though he couldn’t put a name to it immediately. But young Tom Riddle? No recognition on any level. Plus, the soul/memory placed in the diary had experienced the framing of Hagrid already, so if the argument is that a soul fragment gave Harrycrux a trace memory of Tom Riddle’s name, why didn’t Harrycrux have a feeling of déjà vu that something dramatic was about to happen? He didn’t. In fact, at one point, when he was with Riddle waiting in the dungeon for Hagrid, Harry wanted to go back to his room rather than stand there any longer because he was bored out of his wits. I just see absolutely no evidence of “trace memory” there that would support a Harrycrux or Scarcrux theory.

    So how to explain the vague name recognition? I think it was part of the magic placed on the diary so that a student would be “attached” to the diary. We never had an opportunity to find out if Ginny had experienced the same sense of initial recognition, but I suspect she did. We do know that she wrote in the diary, “No one’s ever understood me like you, Tom . . .It’s like having a friend I can carry around in my pocket.” And that is a connection with the idea of diary-as-friend. Moreover, a charm that would give the person possessing the diary a vague sense that T.M. Riddle was an old friend helps to explain how Ginny was drawn into the diary magic so deeply before she tried to get rid of it and also why she went back to writing in it after reclaiming it from Harry’s room.

    In the pertinent passage in which Dumbledore and Harry are discussing the transfer of powers into Harry when the curse backfired, the point is made that it was Voldemort/Slytherin powers that were transferred into Harry, and that reference to Slytherin’s powers is, for me, a clue from Rowling that we aren’t talking about a Voldemort soul fragment transferred into Harry, but about a “pure” transfer of powers.

    IIRC, Lucius Malfoy was a Hogwarts Governor until the end of CoS, so Draco was IMO assuming that his father would manipulate the Board to replace McGonagall with a Malfoy-friendly head given that she didn’t have the same kind of power that Dumbledore had. I don’t personally see that passage as a hint that McGonagall won’t replace Dumbledore in DH.

    I had never given any thought about the wisdom of McGonagall’s announcing the readiness of the mandrake restorative and hope that one of the stricken students would identify the culprit, but I’m not sure I agree that she should have predicted a rash act (certainly not the taking of a student into the Chamber). After all, I thought the assumption was that Slytherin’s monster had petrified the students, not the student who opened the Chamber to let the monster out. So why would anyone expect the un-petrified students to know who had opened the Chamber? It seems to me that the best those students could be expected to do would be to describe the monster.

    And I am not surprised that the petrified students weren’t eaten since Moaning Myrtle had not been eaten, and she was absolutely, positively killed dead and left in the bathroom. Regardless of what the Basilisk was saying, the point of letting the monster out was to pursue Slytherin’s goal of reserving magical education to children born to magical (not Muggle) families, so setting a monster loose to kill Muggleborns and leave their dead bodies behind would not only “purify” the currently enrolled students but would serve as a powerful disincentive to future Muggleborns in a way that the mysterious disappearance of Muggleborn students would not (that would create panic and mystery, but wouldn’t have the same effect as dead students in the castle).

    Dobby had been watching Harry all summer. If Harry had falsely promised not to return to Hogwarts, would Dobby have accepted it without checking to make sure Harry made good on it? I don’t think so.

    I have to agree with the points already made that spiders know a lot of things by instinct, such as their amazing ability to spin complex webs without being shown or taught. And these are talking, magical spiders to boot, so it doesn’t seem a stretch to me that Aragog would know of Basilisks and not want to say the name.

    Final point . . . this is a juvenile fantasy story, so I expect improbabilities. I mean, wasn’t it extraordinarily lucky that Mrs. Norris (spilled water), Justin (ghost), Colin (camera), Hermione (mirror), and Penelope (mirror) all managed to avoid a direct look in the Basilisk’s eye?

  • 10 Travis PrinziNo Gravatar // Apr 4, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Yikes…I suppose sometimes you need to write a dumb post in order to be reminded to be humble or something.

    Good points by all.

    Except for the not telling McGonagall thing. That still makes no sense. They were on their way to tell her when they decided to hide, and then didn’t tell her.

    Kjetil, I had the same reaction to the vanishing cabinet line.

  • 11 MichaelNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 10:25 am

    The shock of it put it out of their minds. That’s all I could come up with. And she did leave before hand… but they were probably in complete shock/denial.

  • 12 Carla LuteNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 10:52 am

    On the point of not lying to Dobby, I’m wondering why as Christians we would want him to lie in the first place?

    It was *good* that Harry did not lie. Harry did the right thing even if it made life more difficult for him. Isn’t that a major theme in the books? What is right is not always what is easy?

    As for not telling McG, all I can do is agree with Spock and say the human race is not logical.

    On plot holes in HBP (off CoS stuff), how did Ron and Harry know that Draco had the hand of glory? I remember him asking for it and Lucius saying “no” at the time.

  • 13 JohnnyNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 11:41 am

    Carla, I’m not sure if it’s a matter of Christians wanting Harry to lie but the fact that usually Harry lies in those situations.

    In my opinion, Harry chose not to lie because that would devastate Dobby. Remember Harry’s first act with the house elf was to ask him to sit down, which no wizard had ever done. Dobby is appreciative to Harry for this small kindness and kind of hero worships Harry, who is the Boy Who Lived and defeated the Dark Lord. Now Dobby associates lies, secrets, cruelty with that of his former masters. Harry I think was treading softly when speaking to Dobby, not wanting to betray that trust so soon after they met.

  • 14 RoxanneNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    As to not telling McGonagall about the Chamber, I see the discovery of Ginny having been taken as being the catalyst for the change in plan. Take these factors together: 1) the focus for the boys changes from one of just “locating the Chamber” to that of “rescuing Ginny who is in immediate danger” - the first is after the fact of a crime, and the second is in the midst of one; 2) the boys had the experience just the previous year of McGonagall not believing them about the danger to the Sorcerer’s Tone; 3) also as in the previous year, there would be no appeal to the absent Dumbledore if McGonagall again blew them off; and 4) they had just heard McGonagall herself default the task of finding the Chamber to “Gilderoy.” Also, hearing McGonagall actually conceding a task so important to the likes of Lockhart, when the boys knew of her disdain for him, is hardly something that would inspire confidence in HER.

  • 15 RoxanneNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    Sorry - In my #2 above, that would be Sorcerer’s Stone. Good grief.

  • 16 JohnnyNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    As far as the whole Harry-and-Ron-not-telling-McGonagall potential plot hole, remember what happened the last time they tried to tell McGonagall something? In the first book Harry (along with Ron and Hermione) was looking for Dumbledore, who responded to an urgent owl from the Ministry of Magic. Harry then tried to tell McGonagall that they knew about the Philosopher’s Stone and that someone was trying to steal it. Shocked and suspicious, McGonagall assured them the Stone was safe and to go outside and enjoy the day. She did not believe them then so Harry and Ron probably thought the same result would happen if they told her the location of the Chamber.

    Also like you said Travis, Ginny changed everything. Harry and Ron needed someone whom would go with them without question. Yes, they knew Lockhart was a fraud but what they didn’t know was that he was a coward. They were banking on Lockhart’s desire to show off. Perhaps they thought that taking Lockhart would benefit them for he would probably be petrified or killed in the process while they would be safe enough to save Ginny. Of course we all know that everything went wrong and Harry was forced to face the Basilisk and Tom Riddle…alone.

    What we would have done in that situation does not matter. These are twelve-year-old kids and immature at that, filled with emotions over their friend Hermione being petrified and Ginny being taken alive.

  • 17 JohnnyNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    I just saw Roxanne’s post and yes, McGonagall did delegate that task to Lockhart. That is key as well. :)

  • 18 Travis PrinziNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    The only thing that works for me in any of this is Johnny’s point, “It doesn’t matter what we would do…these are twelve year old kids.” That’s fair enough.

  • 19 FelicityNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    Yikes! What a lot of grammatical errors in my post above.

    Good points about Harry being a representative of a “good” wizard to Dobby.

  • 20 Travis PrinziNo Gravatar // Apr 5, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    I agree. I think Johnny hit the nail on the head with the good wizard thing.

  • 21 waclimberNo Gravatar // Apr 6, 2007 at 1:34 am

    Hi Travis,

    Please continue your series on ‘plot holes’. I thought you made good points. And the feedback was even better! I learned alot!

  • 22 EeyoreNo Gravatar // Apr 7, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    Travis, whether you are right or wrong in plot holes depends entirely on what Rowling does with Deathly Hallows. There may well be some things that we think are plot holes that will turn out not to be. And there may be, and I’m afraid there will be, some things that just remain unresolved, from the sheer size of the story.

    Some of those plot holes might be the things that she intends to correct if she does go back and redo the books later, as she mentioned she might.

    I try not to get too caught up with them. Mainly, because a lot of inconsistent behaviour on the part of the characters, even the adults, is that teens and adults are not perfect, nor are they always logical. How many times have we all said after some disastrous decision–”well what was I thinking! Why didn’t I do (or say)….”

    I’ve enjoyed reading all the explanations, though. So sometimes a post on plot holes is a good way to discuss those details in the books, all those things that are easy to miss as we get caught up in the story.

    Oh, and I agree–I like COS much better after having read Half-Blood Prince. It all makes a lot more sense.

    Pat

  • 23 JeremyNo Gravatar // Apr 9, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    I’m stickin with scarcrux (nice word, by the way). It just seems too obvious that Harry and Dumbledore are talking about a piece of Voldything being transferred into Harry while the diary is laying on the table in front of them. Way too coincidental. A clever bit of foreshadowing, in my opinion.

Leave a Comment