Okay, on to Book 2!

When you first read CoS, how did you think it compared to Book 1?  Has that opinion changed?

Some people have called this the funniest book in the series.  Do you agree?  If not, which one is?

What's your favorite/least favorite part of this book?

JKR has said that she originally planned to put Voldemort's backstory into this book and then decided to save it for later in the series.  Thoughts?

This is the only book in the first part of the series where Ginny Weasley appears much.  What did you think of her in this book?

What do you think of the movie compared to the book?

What do you make of Dumbledore's much-discussed line at the end of the book, "It is our choices, Harry, that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities"?  Has your opinion of the meaning of this line changed since you first read the book?

Any further thoughts or questions?

I liked it about as much, except I was really peeved when Dumbledore assumed (for no reason that I could tell) that Harry was only a Parselmouth because Voldemort inflicted the 'gift' upon him.

I did think it was hilarious -- I think my single favourite part was when Lockhart suggests that Snape brew up some love potion. 

Um, I think she could have alluded to Riddle's backstory here, and not bothered with it in HBP.  I mean, how important is it, really?  Bad Tom Riddle, direct descendant of bad Slytherin via his mother, grows into immortality-obsessed Voldemort and someone has to get rid of him by destroying his Horcruxes and then him.  Do we really need to know more than that?

I thought she was a nice, rather dull, girl and her crush would probably get worse.

I didn't like it as much as the book, but it was still pretty good.  I was a little sorry they couldn't include everything, though -- and I wished that young!Tom had looked a little more like Harry.  I'd always pictured them as pretty similar physically.  Still, the actor looked a lot like my picture of Tom (DR not so much my image of Harry).  And Emma Watson's Hermione got a little less like my idea of her.

At first I thought he was saying that people are made by their choices -- ie, that Harry's abilities and personality may be decidedly Slytherin (therefore morally ambiguous), but that he is a good person because he chose Gryffindor, the house of good people.  I still think there's something of that, but rather that Dumbledore means that people's choices betray their inner character, which is presumably formed from the beginning, not that those choices can affect character in any way.

Incidentally, I really liked Percy in this book and was quite surprised at his downward slide -- he seemed just a rather straitlaced but well-meaning boy who wanted to improve his lot in life.  But I suppose the road to hell is paved with ambition in the Potterverse.  What did you all think of Percy?

When you first read CoS, how did you think it compared to Book 1?  Has that opinion changed?

At the time, I think I was slightly conscious that it wasn't as good as the first, but I didn't really mind.  I was just happy to have more Harry Potter to read!

Some people have called this the funniest book in the series.  Do you agree?  If not, which one is?

When I think of CoS, the first thing that comes to mind is the basilisk plot, so I always forget about how funny Lockhart is.  But thanks to him, I think the book does qualify as the funniest in the series.

What's your favorite/least favorite part of this book?

My favorite part would be either the stuff with the flying car (especially when it rescues Harry and Ron after it's been living wild in the woods) or the Valentine's Day sequence, with the grumpy dwarf cherubs and Ginny's singing valentine.  Or possibly Lockhart de-boning Harry's arm.  My least favorite part has got to be Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party and the Headless Hunt.  It just seems kind of pointless, and it's not really that amusing...plus it has an early example of JKR's bad math, since NHN claims to have been dead for 500 years but wears the fashions of 400 years before the book is set.  I actually tend to skip that whole section when I re-read this book.

JKR has said that she originally planned to put Voldemort's backstory into this book and then decided to save it for later in the series.  Thoughts?

Now that I've seen the whole series, I think I wish she had done so.  At this point she was still writing for children, so she might have toned down the Gothic-ness.  Also, if the story seemed a little simplistic, it would have fit the tone of the series better at this point.  She could then have added more details later if she wanted to make it more complex.

This is the only book in the first part of the series where Ginny Weasley appears much.  What did you think of her in this book?

I felt pretty neutral toward her, but I do remember an odd twinge of annoyance when we learned she was the one being held in the Chamber.  I think it was because I didn't particularly care about her, but I knew that the climactic sequence was going to be all about ensuring her safety.  It's not all that exciting to watch the main characters rush to the rescue of a minor character you aren't emotionally attached to.

What do you think of the movie compared to the book?

I liked the movie a lot--better than the first one.  Kenneth Branagh as Lockhart is perfect casting!  I especially love the dueling scene.

What do you make of Dumbledore's much-discussed line at the end of the book, "It is our choices, Harry, that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities"?  Has your opinion of the meaning of this line changed since you first read the book?

I thought he meant that abilities in themselves are neutral, and the way they're applied is the important thing.  I didn't really focus on the word "show" there; if I had thought about it, I would have assumed that it was an existential sort of thing--you create yourself through your choices, so they both make you who you are and show everyone who you are.

Now?  I'm still trying to figure out just what that did mean.  I'm not sure whether JKR really believes that people never change from childhood onward or whether she just ... happened to write a book that makes it look like she thinks that.  Or whether she has changed her mind since writing CoS, which is also possible, I guess.


Interesting!  Why did you find that annoying?


I wonder if JKR would have brought in the horcruxes at this point if she'd put Riddle's backstory in this book.  I do think it was a cool effect when we later learned that Harry had destroyed a horcrux without even knowing it.


When I read, I usually don't see the movie cast in my head, but Tom Riddle is the exception.  I think the guy who played him was just about perfect. 

I've never liked Emma Watson as Hermione, though.  She seemed wrong to me right from Movie #1 onward.


Hmm ... I confess I thought he was kind of a pompous twit, but I didn't feel any real animosity toward him.  However, I also never thought he was the Heir of Slytherin or anything like that.  Looking back on the book now, I think I was supposed to find his secretive behavior highly suspicious, but I just didn't fall for it.  In fact, not only did I not fall for it, but I hardly even noticed it!

  I thought I'd answered this ages ago, but it looks like the post gobblers got me again.

This is something that I've always found difficult to put into words, because I've never heard of anyone else having a problem with it.  There were two things, really.  I loved the parallelism between Harry and Voldemort (still do, in fact, though she's undercut it in a lot of ways); it really seemed that Harry has the innate potential to be another Lord Voldemort, and that through his choices he ends up vanguard of the Light, etc etc.  (One of the few things I liked about HBP and DH is that they add an element of complexity to that with Snape and Dumbledore, though I think the Harry/Voldemort parallel remains strongest.)  Also, it seemed that Parseltongue stood for all of Harry's 'Slytherinness' -- which he was very conflicted about through the book -- and the fact that he could pin it on Voldemort gave him an easy escape.

The other, more serious thing, is that through much of the book, Harry was judged as evil because of this rare and special gift.  I really thought the book was taking a stand against that sort of thing.  Instead, it turns out that natural Parseltongue really is a sign of Sekrit Evil and the students were quite right to think so.  They were just misinformed -- they didn't know that Harry wasn't a 'real' Parselmouth.  Ick.

Interesting...at the time I read CoS, I never thought Parseltongue was supposed to be truly evil; I think this had to do with the fact that the first time it appeared was in PS/SS, where Harry had that quite pleasant conversation with the snake in the zoo.

However, as things turned out, JKR does seem quite anxious to pin anything less-than-perfect about Harry onto Voldemort's influence (and so not really his fault at all).  Grr.

And bleah, somehow Dumbledore's backstory completely ruined my liking for him as a character...though I feel downright guilty about saying that.  I think it was supposed to make me like him more, and I can't quite explain why it didn't.