Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets plothole????????

[elsieee]

I haven't watched/read harry potter for a longlonglongLONG time now but today I just randomly thought of something and i have NO ONE to discuss this with.

In Chambers of Secrets, the main big danger is the basilisk that can instantly kill people who make direct eye contact with it. However, that photographer boy (that i forgot the name of) only got petrified when he saw it through his camera, that's when the main gang found out that an indirect look won't kill and that's why all the characters carry around mirrors when trying to do their main character things.

My question is, since the condition for survival is only an 'indirect look' instead of a 'reflection,' and this is confirmed by the photographer boy looking at the basilisk through his camera lens, why don't the characters just wear.... wait for it.... FREAKING GLASSES? like technically you'd be looking through something, no?

this also meant that harry being sneaky with a mirror had been totally pointless since if all indirect looks (not specified what kind, so i'm just gonna assume all) result in petrification, why bother with the extra trouble?

thanks for coming to my tedtalk 

[Melooon]

⚑ Moderators Note ⚑

About this series and JKR

Just dropping in because of the blow up in the shoutbox - its important to note that people can discuss Harry Potter without it being an endorsement of JK Rolling - its a franchise that was important and influential to many people growing up (myself included!) - later opinions by the writer (and your own feelings about the writer) do not invalidate or disqualify the personal importance or enjoyment of the series for everyone else or the many people who spent years working on the films, games and other related stuff.

[close]

'indirect look' instead of a 'reflection,' and this is confirmed by the photographer boy looking at the basilisk through his camera lens

So I think the question here is if the camera actually had a direct passthrough viewfinder or if it was a mirror based camera The one in the film does look like a passthrough, but that could just be a film goof and not intrinsic to the story.

Also what exactly causes the process of petrification? Is it the power of the basilisk that causes it, or does the basilisk invoke some sort of internal terror inside a person that causes them to turn themselves to stone? If it comes from inside the person, then really it's about your own perception of contact and distance from that terror!

[elsieee]

Also what exactly causes the process of petrification? Is it the power of the basilisk that causes it, or does the basilisk invoke some sort of internal terror inside a person that causes them to turn themselves to stone?

that's exactly the type of problem i didn't find in the story when i was a child but its so glaring to me now lol

my personal preference in stories is that you either explain something satisfyingly or you have a literary/plot/symbolic purpose for leaving something unexplained. HP CoS hits the middle spot where its like hi wtf is going on  like she tell us just enough so we know there's a "ruleset" behind how to not get killed by the basilisk, but the "rule" (not make direct eye contact) in it of itself is so vague it creates more questions.

but if we take the rule at its most literal sense, glasses supremacy (yay another win for us glasses wearers)

P.S. I thought I deleted this post? or did a mod bring it back? regardless sorry for being insensitive when posting this that led to the blowup in the chatbox
 

[Corrupted Unicorn]

my personal preference in stories is that you either explain something satisfyingly or you have a literary/plot/symbolic purpose for leaving something unexplained

Sorry for the off-tangent, but I really like this statement, and as someone who owes H.P. a not insignificant amount of appreciation for worldbuilding and narrative, I'd like to ask you if you know more successful examples of leaving something unexplained to the audience.

I think this is a tool that's been a bit overlooked in a world of dataminers and lore-obsessed fans  but at the same time, it's the element of mystery that keeps me engaged with something the most. Like the meaning of the lyrics of a song, or the story behind a game. Sure, it's fun to discuss theories with fellow fans, or deep dive into lore, but ambiguous mysteries like these are an unique experience for me that I appreciate a lot and stick with me for years.

So I want to know how to use them in my stories in the right way 

[elsieee]

I'd like to ask you if you know more successful examples of leaving something unexplained to the audience.

That's a great question! Right now on the top of my ,head I have three examples, and all three use ambiguity for slightly different purposes.

The very first that came to mind is Astroid City by Wes Anderson. TBH as someone who was accustomed to linear and direct storytelling, when I first watched it i was like wtf is this about?

without spoiling too much, the 'plot' of Astroid City is kinda like a film in a film in a film. From the beginning the we're told that we're watching a (fictional) documentary of the making of a film "Astroid City" that doesn't exist. And then the movie jumps intermittently between the fake film Astroid City and the making of the film, differentiated between the black-and-white vs colored videos and the composition of the frame (the documentary section kind of feels like you're watching actors in a play, if that makes sense), which makes the initial viewing experience very confusing

But i think that's actually the charm of the film: the best way I can describe it is that the entire movie is a giant symbol, or a collection of them. The purpose is not a story, but messages. Some interpretations of the film include Anderson's view on the evolution of media and film, the effect of the COVID pandemic, commentary on the Manhattan project, and the trauma of loss. The story is supposed to feel confusing, disconnected, and non-linear, because it's intended to be interpreted. And because Anderson (probably) wants us viewers to feel the uncomfortable delineation from conventional films to get his heavier messages across. This reddit post has a theory I really like but spoiler warning ofc!

The second example, which is imo the best contrast against HP, is The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern. Like HP, it's also supposed to be fantasy and have magic stuff. But instead of having a defined world building and magic system, Morgenstern perfectly uses ambiguity to build atmosphere and even the world itself, without letting us feel unsatisfying. (Disclaimer I'm still not fully done w this book yet (its quite thicc), I'm judging based on what I know, so take it w a grain of salt lol)

The Night Circus takes place in 19th century Europe... sortof. The storytelling in the novel is also nonlinear, and i often find myself jumping between time and perspectives of characters that dont appear to be connected. The "magic" of the circus is also never fully explained: all we know is that it appears at night without warning, and is filled with the strangest, most magical performances. We even get to read parts of the book from the second perspective, which I think is quite refreshing and really helps with immersion. Throughout the entire book, we the readers are just kind of forced to accept that there's just this weird magic behind the circus and the weird characters are forced into doing weird magic stuff (this is the best I can describe without spoilers lol). (btw, the blurb of the book is admittedly quite misleading. if you go into it expecting it to be a straightforward enemies to lovers romantasy then you'd be disappointed. some people say this book doesn't have a plot, but I think it simply quite a reader-driven story. More on that later).

But what makes this a well-executed fantasy compared to harry potter despite it's vague worldbuilding is that it doesn't rely on world building for its plot. TBH, the most compelling part of the HP franchise to me as a child was this whole magic world and system that it has, and the thought of "oh man, i wish I could also attend this magic school and do cool magic things!" But as I grow up, I find it quite easy to pick apart the worldbuilding, and therefore the most compelling part, of HP.

Morgenstern, however, uses vague worldbuilding as a part of the story's charm. You as a reader are never invited to experience the circus as an 'insider' like you would want to experience hogwarts as a student. The story is very much character and atmosphere driven, and we're simply invited to see how these characters navigate their own problems amid this mysterious backdrop and experience the circus magic. But at the same time, this makes Morgenstern's world all the more immersive. We're not confining our imagination to someone else's world (like HP), we're part of the story, experiencing the circus through our imagination (this is what I mean by reader driven). We're never meant to understand the world of the Night Circus, and I think that's the charm of the book.

Last but not least, and probably my favorite example, is The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. (the first chapter is honestly a hard read, but the rest of the book is absolutely banger). O'Brien's storytelling method is kinda similar to Anderson's as both are using ambiguity to convey a message beyond the story itself. However, unlike Astroid City where you're kinda confused from beginning to end, there's only one real ambiguity of The Things They Carried: is the story real or not?

By that, I mean whether or not O'Brien's telling his own experience regarding the Vietnam War, or the story is entirely fictional, or both. (it is worthy to note that TTTC was originally seperate (but interconnecetd) short stories by obrien, only later published together as a book.) Throughout the entire book, O'Brien wrote most if not all of the chapters like they're nonfiction (some chapters are even about him writing the book), but he also tells us things like "almost everything is invented."

But in the end, i don't think it really matters what's real or fake. The Things They Carried tells a lot of messages: about the morality of war, friendships, grief, the burden of responsibilities, etc. But in my opinion, the most impactful messages, and the message told mainly through the story's ambiguious "realness," is the impact of stories in preserving, making sense of, and healing from traumatic events.

My favorite quotes from the book are "What stories can do, I guess, is make things present. I can look at things I never looked at. I can attach faces to grief and love and pity and God. I can be brave. I can make myself feel again," and the final line of the book, (not really spoiler-y but spoiler tagged just incase)

Spoiler

"... when I take a high leap into the dark and come down thirty years later, I realize it is as Tim trying to save Timmy's life with a story."

[close]

OH GOD OKAY that was a lot. Sorry this turned into an essay lol but I just really, really love these kinds of story telling, and these examples I give executed them so well. Of course, disclaimer, because of the unconventional story telling of these three stories, they're definitely not for everyone. But if you're looking for good ambiguos story telling, these three are great examples of how you can use that to achieve widely different goals.

anyways it's almost 2 am i should go to bed.

also man I should refine this and post it on my blog.