Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling

Finally!  After four days without power, the Connecticut Light and Power Co. turned on our power sometime yesterday afternoon.  I can't tell you how relieved we are to have electricity and hot water again.  I feel about 100% more human than I did the whole beginning of this week, and more equipped to tackle what's been going on my job (things be crazy lately).  But I'm even MORE ready to run headlong into the upcoming three-day weekend!  Two more days and I'm there!

Because of the power outage, I'm really behind in my reviews (I was reading faster than I was reviewing).  Today is book 73, an old favorite, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Harry Potter, now 12, has spent his entire summer daydreaming about returning back to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but is off-put by a visit from Dobby, a long-suffering house-elf, who warns him not to return to Hogwarts, since he is in grave danger.  Ignoring the warning, Harry returns to find his school in chaos.  Students are being Petrified by a mysterious being that moves through the school  unseen. Words painted on a wall declare that "The Chamber of Secrets Has Been Opened".  And rumors run rampant about the identity of the "Heir of Slytherin", the only person who can open the Chamber.  Harry must work with his best friends, Ron and Hermione, to discover the identity of the Heir and the location of the Chamber of Secrets and to clear his reputation for good.

This book, second in the series, is certainly not my favorite, though I think it's a great "second" novel.  Now we know the characters -- Harry and Ron, Hermione and Snape and Dumbledore.  The lack of Voldemort in this book is what sets it apart from the later books -- granted (spoiler) he makes an appearance in some form towards the end of the book, but it is certainly different from his presence in Books 4 - 7, where he is a constant malevolent presence.  Chamber of Secrets is still lighthearted enough that I feel it can still be categorized as a childrens' book.  Harry and the crew are only 12 years old, and they still have the pre-pubescent thought patterns that children their age have.  Plus we have the introduction of the Polyjuice Potion, when it was a plot point and not a fall-back.  Ahhh, the good old days.

Kenneth Branagh as Lockhart
(from the Harry Potter Wiki)

Plus, we have the introduction of "Professor" Gilderoy Lockhart, possibly my favorite of all the one-shot Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers (Remus Lupin excluded, of course).  Although he's a complete con artist with a shoddy past, I can't help but like Lockhart, and feel sorry for him when he gets his come-uppance is spectacular fashion.  His overbearing presence throughout Chamber and his whopping tales is what makes him relatable -- we've ALL had that relative/friend/acquaintance whose entire repertoire of stories has to do with his commendable courage, his riveting good looks, or his astounding intelligence.  And Kenneth Branagh was absolutely perfect at playing Lockhart in the film.  I can't help but laugh when I see him donning the ridiculous colored attire and prancing about Hogwarts like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

A good second novel, and worth a reread every few years, most definitely.

Rating: ****

Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling

I'm on a bit of a Harry Potter kick lately (you don't say, Meg?) so I apologize, and I promise that the next book will NOT be HP.  But having finished book 7, and film 7.5, I wanted to go back to the beginning while it was all fresh in my memory, and see the differences between the start and the finish of the series.  And so book 64 for the year was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Seven years before the Epic Final Battle...Harry Potter doesn't know any magic.  He's not even famous (well he is, but he doesn't know it yet).  He hasn't got a clue what he's doing, or where he's going.  He's an orphan who has lived with his mean-tempered uncle and aunt and his bullying cousin ever since his parents died when he was one.  But when Harry Potter turns eleven years old, a mysterious visitor tells him the truth: that he is a wizard, he's just been accepted to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and his parents were not killed in a car crash as he was told, but murdered by the most feared and evil wizard of all time, Lord Voldemort.

Re-reading Sorcerer's Stone after so many years (I first read it in 1999, when I was 16 years old) was like a breath of fresh air (excuse the cliche), especially after seeing how everything ends in Deathly Hallows.  Harry is still young and naive, has low self-esteem, and lacks the "hero complex" that a lot of people say he has in the latter books.  It's funny to see Ron and Hermione as their pre-teen selves as well: Ron is still a scrappy little redhead with an inferiority complex, and Hermione is a bossy know-it-all who hasn't learned to reign it in for diplomacy's sake yet.

The plot is much more subtle as well.  I feel that in later books, J.K. Rowling hits you over the head with plot points, or becomes repetitive.  In Sorcerer's Stone, the villain is much more subtly revealed, and I like that.  I like how Rowling doesn't reveal too much about Harry's past, or what makes him special in the books to come.  It's definitely written for a younger audience, but that is really what made Harry Potter so appealing -- he grew up as we did.

Rating: ****

Harry Potter and the DH, Part II -- some thoughts on the end

Well, it's finally over.  Harry and the crew have rung down the curtain on the epic series that pretty much changed pop culture from the 1990s until now.  And David and I went to the theatre (bargain night Tuesdays -- $2.50 off tickets) last night and saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II.  So in the same vein as I wrote about Part I, I wanted to sum up my experience and my feelings about Part II.

Again, spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet.

I will say that I was exceptionally pleased that the scriptwriters kept as close to the book as possible in Part II.  After cutting the book into two films, they had plenty of time to write in everything.  Very little was cut, and I liked that.

However.  There were some huge changes that I wasn't expecting at all in Part II.  So I'll start out my review with the things I disliked, rather than the things I liked, in order to keep this review positive.

What I Disliked About Part II

- Important deaths glossed over.  This was an issue for me in Part I, too.  We only see the Weasley family sobbing over the body of one of the completely-indistinguishable-from-each-other twins.  There is a brief moment later when Neville (?  I think?) says who it was...but if you blink, you miss it.  Also, the death of Remus and Tonks is completely omitted -- but that was in keeping with the book, so I'm not entirely surprised.

- The omission of Ariana Dumbledore.  The side story about Dumbledore's youth, his battle with Gellert Grindlewald, and especially his family -- Aberforth and Ariana -- was such a crucial part of the book.  I was upset that the filmmakers chose to omit it.  Also, the scene in "King's Cross" with Harry and Dumbledore was drastically altered, which also saddened me.  I felt that this would give Dumbledore's character a little meat.

- The "final battle" and the aftermath.  *sigh*  I don't understand why the filmmakers wanted to put Voldemort and Harry off someplace remote for their "final battle".  I don't understand why, after eight movies, that crucial scene was so rushed.  I didn't get why they omitted the explanation for why Voldemort's wand didn't work until after the scene was over.  Just...does not compute.

- "19 Years Later".  Or, as David whispered to me in the theatre, "More like 19 months later."  Though, I have to admit, the "epilogue" was better in the film than in the book.  Probably because of the lack of shitty writing.  But why does Ron have an enormous beer gut?  Why?

Enough of the negativity.  Let me talk about the good parts.

What I Liked About Part II

-  Snape, Snape, Severus Snape.  OMG, Alan Rickman.  Absolutely amazing.  He played his part to the hilt, and brought me as close to tears as I have ever come watching Harry Potter.  He delivered the flashback scenes exactly like I had predicted.  Just...perfect.

- Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange) pretending to be Hermione.  I mentioned in my review of Part I how I enjoyed characters pretending to be other characters (under the Polyjuice Potion).  But I loved Carter as Hermione.  Brilliant.

- Small redemption for Draco.  Not shown in the book, and admittedly it was a change, but I liked Harry and Draco's confrontation in the Room of Requirement.  In the book, it's Draco trying to stop Harry.  In the movie, it's Draco trying to get his wand back.  You see a hint of humanity in Draco -- though I would have liked to see it fleshed out.  Though, as I mentioned before...in J.K. Rowling's world, there is no room for snakes, or people who like them.  Ever.

- Neville-FREAKIN'-Longbottom.  Oh.  My.  God.  I love this kid.  I love the development of his character throughout the seven books -- especially after Book Five, when he begins to really cultivate his skills -- and I love seeing him come to life in the movies.  His unprecedented display of badassery, at the exact moment when it counted, makes this movie (and the book) wonderful.  The only other thing I can say about it is what someone on my FB feed said in a status update a month ago: Chuck Norris' Patronus is Neville Longbottom.  'Nuff said.

The film was good.  I'm sad to see the series end.  Although, considering that J.K. Rowling is about to launch the "Pottermore" website, I have a feeling she's going to be milking this cash cow for a good long while.

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling

Like almost everyone else in America (and the world) I waited excitedly for the LAST Harry Potter book to come out. I pre-ordered my copy, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it, and the first time I read it, I did so within 24-hours. My feelings about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows are twofold: I was thrilled, and I was disappointed.

It's been seven years since Harry Potter learned that he was a wizard and how his parents truly died.  It has been three years since the dark wizard Lord Voldemort rose to corporeal form and full power again.  Now, in the final book of the Harry Potter franchise, Harry and his friends must find a way to vanquish Lord Voldemort once and for all -- before he destroys their world forever.

I alternately love and hate this book.  I hate it because it is the end of a franchise that I loved so much, my first true literary obsession.  I discovered Harry Potter when I was 15 years old, after my sister took the books out of the library and insisted I read them.  Having the end come, finally knowing what happens, who wins, how it all goes down -- is bittersweet.  Of course you want to know what happens, but you're always sad to see the end of a series you loved so much.

All of the old favorites are back -- but reader beware.  Some of the wrong people are going to die.  Usually Rowling doesn't kill off her characters (or at least, not the major characters) until the end of the book.  Three chapters in, a much-beloved character is lost, and I realized this is the direction she's taking it.  Rowling definitely isn't writing for children anymore.  Deathly Hallows is much more raw and gripping than any of the other HP books.  

I feel again that Rowling tried to cram too much in to one book (sort of like Goblet of Fire). There was so much to take into account, that I'm not even really surprised that the directors cut the final film into two parts. The first whole half of the book has been described as "wizard camping", and while during my re-read I decided this wasn't really fair to Rowling, it does get tedious in parts. The Battle of Hogwarts is terrific. I did like the ending -- the part about the wands was quite a surprise, and I thought she did that up well. The Deathly Hallows was an interesting concept, I wish that they had been hinted at early in the books, but Rowling probably didn't think of how to tie it up up until HBP or so, so it's to be expected.

SPOILER ALERT: My three major issues with this book are the following:

1. Polyjuice Potion. When it first makes an appearance in Chamber of Secrets, Polyjuice Potion is not only an extremely difficult and time-consuming potion to make, it also requires ingredients that are damn impossible to find. Remember how Harry and Hermione have to steal some of the ingredients from Snape in Book 2? And Hermione had to get the potion from a book from the Restricted Section in the library. So why is it that by Book 7, everyone and their MOTHER is using Polyjuice Potion? It made some sense that Alastor Moody would have the ingredients in Goblet of Fire, though it was a bit of a stretch that Barty Crouch Jr. knew how to make it. But in Half-Blood Prince, REALLY? Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle can make it? Come on, Jo Rowling, I expected better. This is a plot hole you can drive a truck through. In Deathly Hallows, Hermione, Harry, and Ron make it through a series of scrapes by utilizing -- you guessed it -- Polyjuice Potion. It's a cure-all for everything in the HP universe -- and it just doesn't make sense.

2. House unity.  Throughout the books, Rowling has the constant message -- from the Sorting Hat, from Dumbledore, etc. -- that the Hogwarts houses must set aside their differences and unite.  Granted, she spent six books making Slytherin house and all its inhabitants and graduates the bad guys (I wonder if Rowling has a serious aversion to snakes?), but I figured that MAYBE, especially in light of Draco Malfoy's hesitation at the end of Half-Blood Prince, there was a chance that Slytherin House would be redeemed.  NOPE.  At the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin House is the only house that doesn't stand and fight with Hogwarts.  All of the children abandon their classmates and teachers to death.  So much for "house unity".  AND, in a move that really did surprise me to the point where I had to read it twice, Potions master and Slytherin House Head, Horace Slughorn, in the final hour, turns and fights on Voldemort's side.  Really?  Even though Dumbledore himself said in Half-Blood Prince "Horace is no Death Eater?"  Apparently it doesn't matter; if you have an ounce of Slytherin blood in your veins, that clearly makes you 100% evil in the Harry Potter Universe (makes Sirius Black even more of an anomaly, no?).

3. The epilogue. OMG, the epilogue. I am not the first person to say it, but seriously: it is terrible. It reads like Rowling just went on to Fanfiction.net and grabbed the first story she could find, and ripped it off. So disappointing. Especially since the book didn't NEED an epilogue, it could have ended right after the battle, and everything would have great. Guess not.

As an avid Harry Potter fan, I have to be honest. I would rate the books in the following way. Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets are the introductory books -- you can't compare them to the later books, they are simply too different. Rowling was writing for children then; she had no idea how her story was going to take off. Prisoner of Azkaban was, is, and will always be my favorite. I think it is the best book Rowling wrote, everything ties up neatly, so much is explained, and -- almost most importantly -- there is no Voldemort. Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix left me disappointed -- I didn't like the story pattern Rowling was sticking to of "action action action climax Voldemort someone dies conclusion." I also didn't like the emo kid that Harry became in Order of the Phoenix (after witnessing the death of a random schoolmate), but I couldn't understand his sudden disappearance in Half-Blood Prince (after Harry witnesses the death of a close friend). After Prisoner of Azkaban, I thought that Half-Blood Prince was the second-best book. I was disappointed in the ending (I had suspected who would die for quite a while before reading it) but allover, I thought it was a very good book, and I waited impatiently for Deathly Hallows. 

The book is good, and it does tie everything up. I enjoyed it. But it's not perfect, it's not quite on par with some of her earlier works, and I can't give it more than four stars. 

Rating: ****