Cancel ALL year-end exams? Not likely

The Chamber -- film and novel

At the end of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Hogwarts administration announces that "the exams had been cancelled as a school treat" to celebrate the resolution of the Chamber problem and the saving of the school from the Basilisk that lurked within.

It's a nice moment... but, in the context of the entire series of novels, it makes no sense.

As we learn in later novels, Hogwarts puts students through two sets of incredibly important examinations (OWLs and NEWTs) at specific points in their academic journeys (after fifth and seventh years). Each has a distinct impact on the student's academic and professional careers and we see the hero trio agonize over their OWLs in The Order of the Phoenix. In fact, Harry, Hermione and Ron's experience in book five suggests that students begin preparing for their major exams very early in the academic year (and often the year before). The exams are important enough, and tough enough, that students need to work long and hard to prepare for them.

So there is virtually no chance that year-end exams for all students would be cancelled for any reason. Sure, it might be possible for the school to cancel exams for students in their first, second, third, fourth and sixth years but it is inconceivable that OWL and NEWT examinations would be cancelled in any year. From what we learn in later novels, the students would have to sit these exams at some point. So I think it is clear that the students who have been working so hard and so long to prepare for them would revolt against the thought that they would be postponed for any period of time.

I first noticed this issue when I recently re-watched the film version of the story. And I immediately blamed screen writer Stephen Kloves. In having Dumbledore announce the cancellation at the year-end speech, I thought Kloves was, of his own volition, taking things a step too far.

Then I checked Rowling's original novel and found this: "or Professor McGonagall standing up to tell them all that exams had been cancelled as a school treat". 

So I was wrong to blame Kloves (Sorry, Stephen).

But it does raise questions about how detailed J.K. Rowling's planning was when she wrote the second novel around 1998, a subject that, as a wannabe writer who finds Rowling's accomplishment in creating the Wizarding World absolutely amazing, is of significant interest to me.

It seems clear to me that, at the point that she was writing The Chamber of Secrets, Rowling had not yet developed in detail the academic journey students go on when they attend Hogwarts. The inclusion of the cancellation of year-end exams for all students in the second book is evidence that, in 1998, the concept of the OWLs and NEWTs was still to be created.

I am not saying this is a big deal. The seven novels are remarkably consistent and it is clear that, even if Rowling in 1998 had not yet developed details to the level of year-end exams, the author accomplished something remarkable in inventing such an incredibly detailed world as she went through the process of writing the seven novels.

But it is interesting to me and indicative of how difficult it can be to do what Rowling did so well -- plan a complex world and then write it over the course of a decade. I don't think it's possible to get every detail right in the early novels when the process of writing the later novels requires thousands of decisions, thousands of details, thousands of considerations as to what will make each book dramatic and effective.

That being said, I am going to read into ending of The Chamber of Secrets that only some exams were cancelled and that students facing their OWLs and their NEWTs were still required to sit their examinations.

Malfoy's murderous intent

Harry frees Dobby with a dirty sock

Lucius Malfoy attempts to murder Harry Potter at the end of the film version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

In what could be considered a significant departure from the original novel, script writer Stephen Kloves chose to expose Malfoy's deepest evil much earlier than Rowling did.

The passage from the novel, which follows Harry's clever way of tricking Malfoy into freeing Dobby, reads as follows:

Lucius Malfoy stood frozen, staring at the elf. Then he lunged at Harry.

"You've lost me my servant, boy!"

But Dobby shouted, "You shall not harm Harry Potter!"

There was a loud bang, and Mr Malfoy was thrown backwards.

"Avada" shouts Lucius Malfoy, wand in motion

Malfoy lunges at Harry, perhaps in an attempt to beat him, or even throttle him, but there is no evidence in the book that Malfoy intended to use the Avada Kedavera nor to kill him at all.

In the film, on the other hand, Malfoy draws his wand and very clearly utters the word "Avada" before Dobby intervenes. Malfoy's intention is clear: to kill Harry. In front of a witness.

Why the change?

I think it is important to note that, when Rowling published the second novel in 1998, she had not yet invented (or at least had not yet introduced) the concept of the "Unforgivable Curses" and, if my memory serves, the killing curse (the Avada Kedavra) had not yet been uttered in the books. Rowling does not mention the specific curse in The Philosopher's Stone when the murder of Lily and James and Voldemort's failed attempt to kill Harry are discussed.

Rowling introduced the Unforgivable Curses by name and incantation in the fourth novel (2000), The Goblet of Fire, when Moody/Crouch Jr. showed them to the students.

So it is possible that it was Rowling's intention that we read that scene at the end of The Chamber of Secrets as involving Malfoy attempting to murder Harry before she had invented the killing curse. And, as a result, Kloves isn't really changing anything when he added the Avada Kedavara to the scene when he wrote the script for the second movie around 2007.

But I am not sure that's true. I am not sure Rowling's scene depicted a possible attempted murder -- killing someone with one's bare hands is an incredibly difficult, violent act, not one that belongs in a book written specifically for children and young adults. I think it is much more likely that Rowling either had no clear idea of what Malfoy's intentions were -- she knew she would have Dobby intervene so she didn't have to make that decision -- or she saw him as indulging in a fit of rage, with the intention of hurting Harry but not killing him.

If I am correct in this, we have to wonder why Kloves added the intent to murder into the film. By the time he was working on the script, the fourth book had already been published so that Unforgivable Curses had been introduced into the novels so the Avada Kedvara was available... but it's the intent that is important. In the film, Malfoy is willing to commit murder (or the Wizarding World's favourite son, no less) in front of a witness, within a stone's throw of Dumbledore's office.

And, to be frank, that makes no sense to me.

Throwaway line raises questions

I caught a very brief moment from The Chamber of Secrets on TV yesterday and had to laugh. The moment I saw involved Lucius Malfoy and Mr. Weasley at the end of their confrontation in Flourish and Blotts.

As you know, the two get into a fist-fight in this scene in the book but, in the movie, the confrontation is reduced to a lot of sneering and menacing talk. Be that as it may, it is an important scene to the plot as Lucius uses the melee to place Tom Riddle's diary in Ginny Weasley's book.

The book version begins with Malfoy saying to Weasley: "Busy time at the Ministry, I hear."

The book version ends with Malfoy sweeping out of the shop.

The line I caught from the movie has Malfoy exiting with the line: "See you at work."

I had never registered this line before. In the film, Malfoy apparently works at the Ministry too. In the books, he is presented as a wealthy aristocrat who has no apparent job. His influence at the Ministry is a function of his money, not his employment.

So why, in the film, do they present Malfoy as working for the Ministry? It makes no sense. It's a throwaway line, to be sure, but why is it there at all?

The next time I watch the films (if I ever watch them again!) I will have to be very careful to watch for any other evidence, in any of the films, that Malfoy in fact works for the Ministry of Magic. I can't imagine Lucius Malfoy ever working at all! Other than working at ingratiating himself with the Dark Lord :).

The little details should have given Snape away

What was I thinking? How did I miss this? How did I fail to ask questions?

In the long passage in The Half-Blood Prince in which Dumbledore and Harry discuss the implications of the full Slughorn memory and the fact that Voldemort appears to be planning to make no fewer than six Horcruxes, the Head Master makes several comments that should, in my numerous earlier readings of the book, have made me stop and ask questions.

"When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold," Voldemort tells Harry at one point in the conversation.

Wait a minute, I should have said. Hold on there, Dumbledore. Who told you how Voldemort reacted to the news that Lucius Malfoy had permitted the diary to be destroyed? Who was there to "behold" Voldemort's terrible anger and then tell you about it?

But I didn't. I missed it. I failed to see the hint that J.K. Rowling laid down so subtly that, no matter what I saw and heard in Chapter Two, Severus Snape was actually still working for Dumbledore.

Who else could have given Dumbledore this tidbit of information from the inner sanctum of the Dark Lord? Who else could possibly have been there to behold the incident and then report it back to the Hogwarts Head Master?

Later in the same scene, Dumbledore drops another clue: "I understand that Voldemort had told him [Lucius Malfoy] the diary would cause the Chamber of Secrets to reopen, because it was cleverly enchanted."

'You understand from whom?' I should have asked. 'That's pretty specific knowledge of the details of what the Dark Lord said to one of this closest companions about one of his most important possessions. You couldn't become acquainted with that level of detail from a simple rumour, from third-hand reports.'

Remarkable. It's one of the most amazing things about Rowling as a writer of suspense: she has this uncanny knack of dropping little hints, tiny clues, minuscule details innocuously into seemingly much more important passages so that the reader does not pick up on them on first, second or third read, yet might some day (like today) realize just how important those hints, clues and details are to the story.

She makes her stories so exciting that it is impossible to slow yourself down and pay attention to the minute details yet she rewards such attention to detail with clear indications of what is really going on.

On Dale's reading and Rowling's writing

The awesome Hogwarts Model on the Warner Brothers Studio Tour

An excerpt from my Writer's Blog entry for today:

I have spent all of my available spare time over the past couple of weeks listening to the audiobook versions of the Harry Potter novels. I have already listened to The Philosopher's Stone, The Chamber of Secrets and the first part of The Prisoner of Azkaban and I am very much enjoying the experience.

Yes, there are some things about the Jim Dale version of the audiobooks that are not so great: I hate the fact that Scholastic Books "Americanized" some of the language in the books; I find that Dale tends to make the younger female characters (especially Hermione and Ginny) sound much too whiney; and I find that, although Rowling often overuses adverbs to describe dialogue, Dale often ignores her descriptions when he reads.

For example, as I have noted in my Harry Potter blog, one of J.K. Rowling's few weaknesses as a writer is that she seems to lack confidence in the quality of her dialogue, not trusting what a character says to indicate the manner in which they say it. When a character says, "I'm frightened,", Rowling has a tendency to add the tag "he said fearfully". The adverb "fearfully" is not required. There are entire passages of dialogue where Rowling includes unnecessary adverbs as part of every tag and it drives me a bit mad.

Even more frustrating is when Dale, in his reading of the passage, ignores the adverbs and the content of the dialogue in his vocalization: ""I'm fine", Harry muttered darkly," Rowling might write and then Dale reads the "I'm fine" in a bright, cheery voice, capturing neither the fact that Harry is described as muttering nor that he said the line "darkly".

Putting that aside, however, I am finding the experience of listening to someone else reading these much loved books an eyeopening one. I have come to the realization that I read the Harry Potter books much too quickly when I read them for myself: I get so caught up in the plots that I skim entire passages and miss many many subtleties in the writing. It might take me about four hours to read the first Harry Potter novel myself; with the audiobook, I spend almost eight and half hours listening to the story being read to me.

Dale's reading is clear, well-paced and entertaining. And, because it's him reading, I can't skim anything. I am "forced" to hear every detail, every nuance, every word. And it's been something of a voyage of discovery for me. I am becoming even more aware of Rowling's skills as a writer, the care she put into planting seeds early that don't flower until later, the subtlety of her development of her characters and her plots.

I'm loving every minute of it. Sure, I get teased at work for carrying around an ancient CD Walkman but the opportunity to listen to these audiobooks has made my daily walks to and a from work a very enjoyable experience. And my appreciation for J.K. Rowling's skill as a writer continues to grow.

The Chamber of Questions: Talking to the Basilisk...

A couple of questions that came to mind as I finished re-reading The Chamber of Secrets:

1. What would have happened if Harry had spoken to the Basilisk in Parseltongue, telling the giant snake not to attack him, to go to sleep, to take up knitting?

2. Since Hagrid has now been completely cleared of opening up the Chamber of Secrets and causing the death of Myrtle 50 years before, why does he not buy a new wand and take private training to become a fully qualified wizard?

I have often wondered about what the Basilisk would have done had Harry started to give it orders in Parseltongue. Clearly, Tom Riddle has control over it, thanks to his mastery of the serpent language, but wouldn't that mean that Harry, also a Parselmouth, could give it commands as well? It's not like Tom Riddle has spent a lot of time developing a relationship with the Basilisk. Could Harry not have at least confused it by countermanding Riddle's orders and substituting some of his own?

It raises the question of whether the ability to speak Parseltongue gives a person control over snakes or simply the power to speak to them. In Harry's first encounter with a snake, at the beginning of Book One, Harry has a conversation in Parseltongue with the Boa Constrictor in the zoo. Harry doesn't give it orders; he simply chats with it.

In his second encounter with a snake, however, Harry orders the snake Draco Malfo conjures not to attack Justin and it immediately obeys him. All Harry has to say is 'Leave him!' and, to quote JK, "miraculously -- inexplicably -- the snake slumped to the floor, docile as a thick black garden hose, its eyes now on Harry."

So what would have happened if Harry had said to the Basilisk, "Lie down", or "Leave me alone", or perhaps "Kill Tom Riddle"? Would the Basilisk have responded? Would it have become confused by being given orders by two different people, such that Harry could have escaped?

It's a wonder Harry didn't try to speak to the Basilisk at all.

With regard to Hagrid, it is one of the main pillars of Hagrid's backstory that he was expelled from Hogwarts while he was still young and, further, that his expulsion led to his wand being broken in half such that he could no longer perform magic properly.

We learn in The Chamber of Secrets, of course, that Hagrid was expelled because he was suspected of having opened the Chamber and letting loose the monster within.

Thanks to Dumbledore, he is allowed to remain at the school as the keeper of keys and grounds. But he is not a wizard, nor is he permitted to carry or use a wand.

So, now that Harry has proven that Hagrid is an innocent victim of Tom Riddle's treachery, why would Hagrid not immediately return to training to be a wizard? Why at least would he not buy a new wand and get back to doing magic properly?

I know it would change a great deal in the last five books but it's always bothered me. The man was cleared of the crime: why does he still have to be subject to one aspect of the punishment for that crime?

Did I miss something along the way? Is there any explanation at all for this in the final five Harry Potter novels?

What did Lucius know about Tom Riddle's diary?

I have open before me two paperback books: the first, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets; the second, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Why?

Because I'm comparing passages dealing with Tom Riddle's purpose in re-opening the Chamber from each novel. I had thought I would find discrepancies and inconsistencies between the second book, in which Riddle (through Ginny Weasely and his diary) actually re-opens the Chamber, and the sixth book, in which Dumbledore explains to Harry Horcruxes and what information the Head Master was able to glean from the events from Harry's second year at Hogwarts.

What did I find?

Remarkable consistency.

In the second book, the memory of Tom Riddle tells Harry:

"I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work."

In the sixth book, Dumbledore explains:

"[The diary] worked as a Horcrux is supposed to work -- in other words, the fragment of soul concealed inside it was kept safe and had undoubtedly played its part in preventing the death of its owner. But there could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted the diary read, wanted the piece of his soul to inhabit or possess somebody else, so that Slytherin's monster would be unleashed again."

Consistent and helpful.

Even more interesting to me is that these passages seem to hint at why Lucius Malfoy would choose the particular moment he did to pass the diary along to a Hogwarts student after holding on to it for 50 years: he recognized the threat Harry Potter himself posed to Voldemort's return and hoped, by slipping the diary into Ginny Weasley's text book, to give whatever evil force the diary contained the chance to deal with Harry before Harry grew up and grew strong.

It had always been a puzzle to me why Lucius chose that moment to re-introduce the diary and, of course, there is at least one moment in the stories where he is questioned for that decision, for disposing of a precious piece of Voldemort's soul so carelessly. We are led to believe, by Dumbledore's own comment at the end of Book Two, that Lucius chose to give the diary to Ginny so that the Weasley family's reputation would be tarnished and Mr. Weasley's Muggle Protection Act would be thwarted.

But I think it was deeper. I think Lucius Malfoy knew, at least to an extent, what the diary contained and was acting under instructions from Voldemort to place it at Hogwarts when things seemed most opportune or when an intervention of this nature was most needed.

Malfoy saw the danger Harry posed on an on-going basis to the Dark Lord's return -- Harry had, after all, defeated Voldemort once again at the end of The Philosopher's Stone -- and decided it was time to bring his Master back to deal with that threat.

I agree. There is no way Voldemort told Lucius Malfoy about his intention to create Horcruxes, nor that the diary he was entrusting to Malfoy was a Horcrux, but he must have explained to Malfoy that the diary contained a power that could open the Chamber of Secrets and wreak havoc at the school.

That's my theory, at least, but I have to admit that I'm not one-hundred per cent convinced of it even now. What do you think?

What does George know about the Basilisk?

Does George Weasley have some extra sense that no one else shares? Does he have some understanding of  the dark arts that everyone else lacks?

Stupid questions?

Maybe. But consider this.

There's a point about two-thirds of the way through The Chamber of Secrets, when Harry is feared to be the Heir of Slytherin and no one, not Albus Dumbledore nor even Hermione Granger herself, has figured out what creature dwells within the fabled Chamber. Fred and George have decided to have fun with everyone's fear of Harry by loudly telling people to get out of his way as he makes his way through the halls of the school.

Percy attempts to intervene but George tells him to to get out of Harry's way because Harry is "nipping off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged servant."

Hmmm... "fanged servant", eh?

As you will recall, the creature in the Chamber was, in fact, a Basilisk, a massive snake with long, curving fangs, deathly poison and a killer glance. But, at the time of George's comment, the only thing anybody knew about the creature was that it had petrified a number of people.

Nobody had been bitten; no blood had been spilt.

So help me to understand why George would refer to the creature as Harry's "fanged servant".

A good guess, probably. Merely a coincidence.

Or did George know something more?

The Chamber of Secrets is one of the weaker films

I am slowly working my way through the first seven Harry Potter movies in preparation for seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, for a second time in the cinema.

To my surprise, I found that the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, is starting to lose its luster for me. It lacks the charm of the first film and, but for a scintillating climax, it also comes across as slightly self-indulgent. Whereas the first film offered us the wonder of a first-time look at the magical world, this second movie tries but fails to recapture that magic. And I think the acting, particularly of Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, is definitely not as good.

One of its biggest drawbacks is the overbearing presence of Gilderoy Lockhart, played by Kenneth Brannagh. I'm not saying Brannagh doesn't do well with the part; I'm just saying that the silliness of the Lockhart character in the film is too much and detracts from the effectiveness of the entire movie.

Now, as I said, I do think the ending of the film is powerful, perhaps even powerful enough to save the entire movie. Harry's encounter with Tom Riddle and the Basilisk, over Ginny Weasley's dying body, is gripping. In particular, I think Fawkes, the Phoenix, is beautifully created, so fantastic that you wish the bird had a bigger role in later films.

I also like Harry's final encounter with Mr. Malfoy at the end of the movie. I still can't believe that Lucius actually intended to use the killing curse on Harry before Dobby intervened. What a great way to tell us all that the stakes are getting higher awfully quickly.

And it's also a nice reminder of just how powerful Malfoy was in the beginning. I've gotten used to him as the fallen Death Eater he becomes in the later books.

Rewriting Remus really works, and other positives from Part 2

Before I move on to more criticisms of the new movie, I want to talk about some of the things I really liked about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

Because, overall, I really liked this film. Almost as much as I liked Part 1.

For example, I was really happy when the filmmakers included the scene where Harry, Hermione and Ron emerge into the Room of Requirement to be greeted with cheers from the students gathered there. I love that moment in the book and I think they did a nice job of presenting it in the film.

I liked the fact that they rewrote Remus Lupin's answer to Harry when the young wizard tells the returned-from-the-dead Lupin how sorry he is that Lupin has died so soon after the birth of his son. In the book, Lupin speaks only of himself. In the movie, he says something about how both he and "Dora" (Tonks) were sorry they won't be able to see Teddy grow up but trust he will know the important reason for which they died. I like the fact that Lupin, in the film, recognizes his wife's sacrifice as well, something he doesn't do in the book.

In fact, I think that whole scene with the resurrection stone is beautifully done. Well acted, well filmed, very touching and heart warming.

I was surprised and pleased that screenwriter Stephen Kloves added the scene where Hermione and Ron go down to the Chamber of Secrets to fetch the Basilisk fangs and destroy the Cup Horcrux. In the novel, H&R only tell Harry later what they've done: it was nice to see them get a chance for some screen time. The kiss... well, I'm trying to be positive here.

I thought Snape's death and the montage of his memories were really quite wonderful. It was an edited version of the chapter in the book but I thought it captured all the really necessary points. Again, the acting is great and the scene heart-wrenching.

I was also pleased and impressed with the scene between Harry and the Grey Lady. The editing was particularly good there and the scene comes off well.

As I said at the start, overall I was really happy with this film. I think it is a strong addition to the series and a particularly good way to end. The acting is improved over earlier films, especially that of Daniel Radcliffe, and I think the technical aspects of the film are great.

Remember that as you read later posts because, to be honest, I have always found it easier and more interesting to talk about the negatives than to glorify the positives. I don't want you to think I hated the movie as you read your way forward in this blog.

Answering My Own Question

That just shows how carefully I read. Or maybe it says something about my memory.

A couple of posts ago I asked the question: whom did Tom Riddle murder to create the Horcrux in the diary? I speculated that it might have been the girl whose death was blamed on the monster hidden in the Chamber of Secrets during Riddle's (and Hagrid's) tenure at Hogwarts.

Well, surprise, surprise. J.K. answered that question clearly and unequivocally in The Half-Blood Prince. Riddle killed his Muggle father and grandparents when he was 16.

How did I not remember that?

It just goes to show how detailed and complex Rowling's magical world is. Over the course of the seven novels, she really did cover it all.

Who Died to Create the Diary Horcrux?

Voldemort created his first Horcrux, the Diary, while he was still Tom Riddle and attending Hogwarts. Who did he kill to create it?

Anybody know? Is it anywhere in the books? I can't find it. The best I can guess is that Tom Riddle murdered the young muggle-born girl when the Chamber of Secrets was first opened up and the Basilisk took the blame for her death.