freudguy

I just read Chamber of Secrets (I've seen the movie, too) and have one question.

Tom Riddle created the diary to store his 16 year old self. He becomes more "real" as Ginny becomes weaker due to exposure to the diary & Tom Riddle/Voldemort taking control of her.

As read in Sorcerer's Stone, Voldemort is more or less an evil spirit.


My question: Since Voldemort is still around as a malevolent spirit, does the emergence of the 16 year old Tom Riddle create 2 different Voldemorts? Or does the spirit Voldemort enter the Tom Riddle body?

I'm probably analyzing this too much but I'd like an answer if there is one. I just don't remember if this "paradox" is resolved in the books or not.

hotaru_san

They are separate. The "real" Voldy is out wandering around trying to figure out how to get some power. Tom was just waiting around in the diary looking to make trouble. Before finding out what Harry had done to his future self he probably would have been content to keep the Chamber active, but after finding out about Harry he wanted to meet and fight him.

As far as I can see, there's no problem with having two Voldies since one is not real it doesn't present a real problem.

CloudsMountain

Chamber of Secrets is actually my least favorite of the series so far, though they made a hell of a movie out of it. I just thought that Rowling was grasping for some big twist she could throw in there. The whole thing with Tom rearranging his name to spell "I am Lord Voldemort" was kinda weak to me. Especially when he supposedly wasn't the real Voldemort. (???)

DVDGUY1116

I look at the Tom Riddle from the diary like a interactive memory. He is very similiar to the memories from the Pensieve from later books but you can actually interact with this memory. Eventhough he is a "memory" I still consider him the real Voldemort as Tom Riddle WAS his name when he went to Hogwarts. Tom Riddle in Chamber of Secrets is the real Voldemort manifested as a memory instead of the physical manifestation of Voldemort. I hope this makes sense. Chamber is also my least favorite HP book.

Pharoh

At the urging of my son, on Monday I read the third book in the series. Since he had read it, he wanted me to also before we see the movie this weekend. After doing so, I have a few questions.

I thought the book was okay and enjoyable, but not extraordinary. Granted, I rarely read any fiction, so perhaps that is coloring my opinion. My first question is then, should I read the remaining books? Are they better than the third, or at least as good? If they are, and I do trust the opinions of those here, I will probably. Again, I did enjoy the book, but want to make sure I can expect about the same or better. What about the first two, should I go back and read those?

I also have a question on the character of Harry Potter. I knew that the movies made him out to be a much stronger and less afraid character than the first two books did, (or at least I believe that to be true), but I always thought of him as wily and rather clever. In The Prisoner of Azkaban I found him to be neither. He was a somewhat disappointing character, one who seemed to be merely a pawn of events surrounding him. Moreso, he was at times woefully unaware and in the end had very little affect on the outcome. Is this interpretation faulty? Is it that I haven't yet read the first two books? Without any spoilers, does this change, is it unique to this book, assuming it is correct to begin with? Has his character grown, does he continue to?

Truly looking for some more learned thoughts and suggestions. Thanks.

milo bloom

You should have started at the beginning. It gives a better introduction to the world.

And I never really thought of Harry as wily and clever, he's just stouthearted. Living with the Dursleys will either break someone or make them stronger than ever. He has Hermione and Ron (and others) that all support him and he supports them.

However, he is a pawn in the events. Remember, his beginning was defeating Voldemort as an infant. He may not seem active, but he sets a lot of things in motion just by existing.

I think you should read the other books, you might not like the first two as much, but the fourth and especially the fifth book really up the level of excitement.

Kal-El

Read upto Goblet of Fire (book 4) at least. It's my personal favorite of all 5 so far.

Blade

If you don't read a lot of fiction, then I'm not surprised the books don't appeal to you much. I think what sets these books apart is that they are very easy reads with a strong underlying moral sense. Moreover, they build off of years of development in mythological/fantastical worlds that has been going on in fiction since the Brothers Grimm. Rowling has put her own unique spin on it and does a great job of describing that world and the people she populates it with, but at the end of the day, it's still a story about gallantry, magic and monsters.

I do recommend them, but only to people who don't dislike the fantasy genre.

As for the books, I personally was a bit underwhelmed by the first book. It is, however, very short, and it is an extremely easy read (like all the books), so it doesn't take long to get through. I thought that book 2 was significantly better than 1, and that they just got better and better up to book 4 (which is my personal favorite so far). I was a bit let down by book 5 though. I think I need to reread it, but I'm waiting for the 3rd movie to come out first.

This was originally planned as a 7 book series (to coincide with the 7 years of instruction at Hogwarts), so Harry's not always going to seem the sharpest character in the books. He's still pretty young at the point where you're at in the series.

Also, I've always thought the movies had done a very poor job of portraying anyone but the 3 main characters. While they are central to the overall story, it's always been their interaction with the other characters in the books that I loved the most.

Pharoh

Thanks for the answer, (thanks as well to milo bloom and Kal-El for responding).

I don't dislike the fantasy/sci-fi genre at all. When I have read fiction in the past that was the main type I chose to read. Maybe I was just expecting a bit more, maybe the films colored my perceptions too much. I think I will give the 4th book a read and see what happens. Thanks again.

milo bloom

The only reason I felt slightly let down by Book 5 was that it was still too short. It was over a year late, but it still seems like she had to cut stuff for length.

I'd love a set of books that fill in little bits and pieces over the seven years. Sorta like LOTR's History of Middle Earth series (which I know are just Tolkien's notes, but still)

PalmerJoss

Really? Too short? If anything, I felt that Book 5 was about 400 pages too long! An awful lot of what happened in the book could have been trimmed out IMO. It almost seemed like the author just kept writing simply to make the book longer. I hope that books 6 and 7 don't follow the same pattern, because I felt let down by book 5 overall. It was a decent read, but not anywhere near as great as books 3 and 4.

AgtFox

I'm troubled by the too short comment as well. Book 5 was the largest of the books and as said before a lot could be cut out for the movie. Book 4 I'm not sure what they're going to do...there's a lot of meat in it.

milo bloom

I can't really pin it down, maybe it was just rushed writing, but it seems that she would be giving a lot of attention to some things, then rush over others. Like she was trying to get the book done and only explaining what was absolutely neccesary.

Still a great read.

mllefoo

The problem with book five was how petulant Harry became, though justifiably so since he's supposed to be an angry teenager by that point. Also, a couple of really bad things happen in the book that many people took exception to, but I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it yet.

Although these books were meant as children's books, they get darker and scarier as the series progresses. They are a light read and pretty entertaining. If you take them as they are meant to be, you should enjoy them.

I always get a kick out of people who try to read more into the books than is probably there.

SeekOnce

Personally, this is what I liked most about Order of the Phoenix. He seemed more real and genuine because of it.

But that's just me.

DRG

Ranking them, I'd say:

Goblet of Fire
Order of the Phoenix
Prisoner of Azkaban
Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone
Chamber of Secrets

While I've listed the first two books at the bottom, they're still rather good. I think Azkaban and the others are less enjoyable reads if you don't read the first two, even if you've seen the movies.

For me, Prisoner was great simply because it was such a sudden and sharp turn into darkness. The story itself is a bit anticlimactic comapred to the others, but the tonal shift is jarring, in a good way.

Goblet of Fire is my favorite just because it is such an epic. Everything seems important, the stakes have been raised, and there are loads of great twists and character moments. It packs so much in that I don't care how long it is. Hell, I would've liked more!

Order of the Phoenix doesn't quite pull that off, and has some pacing issues (namely an overlong wait before we get to Hogwarts). But there is such wonderful looming fear, a sense of dread throughout the book. But even besides that, it conveys a sort of hopelessness in Harry's life that might have been off-putting for many, but it made the story so rich for me.

Nick Danger

The person who lent me his collection didn't like Book 5 at all. He thought it was boring, and he wanted more magical adventure.

My wife and I found the increased character interaction and greater depth of worldview was fascinating.

So where did all Harry's gold come from? In the first book, for younger children, you accept that he's suddenly rich and can buy all the candy he wants. By the latest book, you become aware that there's a whole economy and that money doesn't appear from nowhere.

AgtFox

They never talk about it that I know of, but I am guessing the Potter family (the pure wizard half of Harry's ancestors) was rather wealthy. Then again (spoilers for things that happen after Prisoner of Azkaban):


I would go more with the former than the spoiler material. I doubt Harry's mom had any wizard wealth given that she is a mudblood. It seems the pure wizards, outside of the Weasley's, are the ones with the fortunes (like the Malfoys and the family talked about above).

movie diva

His parentes left him well off, he even thinks the Dursleys would try to get the gold if they knew about it.

Ginwen

I may be imagining things, but I'm pretty sure the money thing was addressed in the first book (he needed money to buy all his school supplies).

AgtFox

It was addressed, but there was never any word on how James Potter came up with all that money. I'm conjecturing that the Potter family (purebloods) was rich beyond belief or I take the other, spoilerific, route.

Kal-El

I may be wrong but weren't the Potters

silentbob007

I don't believe we have ever found out what the Potters did for a living ...

AgtFox

bob is correct. I was just looking at a Q&A that J.K. Rowling did and she was asked what Harry's parents did for a living and Rowling said something like, "I can't tell you that because it is a plot point that hasn't been discussed yet".

I still say the Potters were rich or my spoiler section.

madara

As I re-read HP novels I once again find myself baffled at some of topography descriptions Rowling uses when Harry and gang are out about the grounds.

Is the front doors not the one pictured in this map facing the lake? Or are there two "front" doors, one that actually faces the north with road leading to garg gate?

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogw...s-h-ecmap.html

Otherwise alot things Rowling claims can be seen when Harry and gang leave the front doors confuses me. Best example of this The Goblet of Fire when it states they go out the front doors and stare straight down the road leading to front gates waiting for the Beauxbatons. Hmm, they are facing south with huge castle to north in way of that view? Then after the Beauxbaton carriage lands they claim to see the lake clearly where Durmstrang appears. I fail to see where its possible to see both ends with such large castle mass in the way. I never been near a castle I suppose I am tripping up on elevation or that its broken into parts more then I think?