CoS, and in defence of Lockhart

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 27531

I have long noted that CoS seems the least popular of the books, which I find odd, given that the phenomenal success of the HP series must surely hinge heavily on the success of the *second* book.  I confess to finding Dobby a bit grating (I like him better in GoF), and finding the Basilisk's poor hit rate a bit too fortuitous, but don't share many of the other objections.  I liked Ford Anglia to the rescue - after all, JKR *did* plant him in the forest at the start, it isn't an entire Deus Ex Machina.  I find Lockhart hilarious, and Moaning Myrtle quite amusing.  I don't see the problem with the Whomping Willow.  I think that CoS reveals a vast amount of fundamental background information about the Potterverse and has a lot of interesting themes: Squibs, the founders, Tom Riddle and Voldemort, the essential fickleness of popularity (as both Harry and Lockhart found), important characterisation of the Malfoys... seems pretty good to me.

Though I'd put PoA first, together with most people, I think GoF is much more of a shambles than CoS.  CoS, despite a few holes, is tightly plotted and has an ingenious and surprising climactic twist.  GoF wanders on and on, shows signs of plot device desperation to achieve the desired ends, and its central event, the Triwizard Tournament, and climax in the graveyard are much more holey and implausible than anything in CoS, IMO.  I have to wonder whether JKR's editors were getting too awestruck to wield the machete.  If she'd given *me* the manuscript (O well, one can dream), I would have have been much more brutal with the axe and the pruning shears (and then fled before a team of HP4GU members took up their own axes and pruning shears to hunt me down).  I'm sure at least 100 pages could have bitten the cutting room floor without crucial loss to the plot.

Cindy:
> I wonder if there is a sliding scale for magical ability.  I was 
thinking that a squib is a wizard, but is a failed wizard.  (Isn't 
Filch described somewhere as a "failed wizard"?  I can't find the 
reference.)  <

It's Terry Pratchett's Rincewind who is regularly described as a failed wizard.  Now, while everyone is deriding Lockhart, are there any thoughts about *his* level of magical ability?  When rereading CoS I couldn't help wondering if he was the Slytherin class dunce, who, being a totally undistinguished student with moderate ability at Charms only, found other ways to achieve his ambitions for fame and fortune (could he have been at school at the same time as the Marauders?).  In some ways, you have to hand it to him - ludicrous and underhand as he is, he did a very good job of achieving fame, fans and recognition for a weak wizard.

vheggie:
> Lockhart?  Despite his being described as having blond hair, I cannot see him as anyone except our 
own Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen...

> In order to justify this post, I ought also to say that I feel that 
Mr Lockhart gets an unecessarily bad press; yes he does appear to be 
a caricature - but for good reason, he IS one.  Bear in mind that the 
person you see is not Lockhart at all, but a carefully designed 
persona.  We don't get to meet the 'real him' until he reveals his 
true nature towards the end of CoS.<

Actually, you know, you may be onto something here about LLB... he does have the right cheesiness.  Let me also raise my voice in support for your comments about Lockhart.  As a character (distinct from as a person), I think Lockhart is great fun, and he is not so much fundamentally one-dimensional as projecting a carefully coiffed public image.  As I mentioned above, in order to achieve what he has through deception and self-promotion and sneaky Memory Charms, I'd argue that he has to have an abnormally high level of craftiness, imagination, marketing ability, brains and cunning, which he is hiding most effectively behind the glitzy facade.  I think he  must be quite a complex character once you acknowledge that what he presents is not all there is.

He has figured out how to make the most of his weak-chinned and weedy looks by playing up his 100 watt smile and perfect teeth and distractingly elaborate styling of his golden hair.  He has successfully written a string of best-selling books (no mean feat, as any struggling author would tell you), even if they are partially works of fantasy rather than autobiography.  His real problem, as I see it, is that he is not savvy enough to market himself as a teacher.  He would have been much more sensible to turn down the Hogwarts job (I suspect he had a terrible time at school himself), rather than letting his vanity convince him that he could win them over too with the same tactics and get further kudos from the job.  As vheggie points out, when we see the real him behind the facade, we see that he is actually cowardly and weak and selfish to the point of evil, but hey, doesn't this make the whole performance he's managed to pull off and convince the public with for years even more impressive?  I think he's a great alternative villain and comic relief provider.

Cindy:
> Sadly, Lockhart has managed to tally only a few fans and no support group 
has even been proposed, so far as I know.

As one of this happy minority, it's clearly up to me to start a support group.  How about L.I.G.H.T.R.E.L.I.E.F. (Lockhart is Genuinely Hilarious Territory: a Really Entertaining Loser, If Evil Fellow)?

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]