Lies and Deceit Quotes in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

One of the weird things about the Dursleys isn't just that they are so obsessed with being normal; it's that they're so bad at it. Aunt Petunia's compliments seem insincere but at least not crazy. As for Dudley, though – who wouldn't see through his claim that he's going to write a school essay about Mr. Mason? This is why we feel that the depiction of the Dursleys in the early novels of the series are almost cartoonish in their exaggeration. It's later on that we get a more realistic sense of how small-minded, fearful, and difficult they are.

Dobby is the first in a long line of people – most notably, Professor Dumbledore later in the series – who keep things from Harry "for his own good." Here, Dobby is stopping Harry's friends' letters to make Harry think that he has nothing to go back to at Hogwarts. It doesn't work to keep Harry from going to school, of course. Still, do you think that it ever works to try and hide information from people "for their own good"? Are there times when it is necessary to keep secrets to prevent others from being hurt or offended? Do you think Dobby's deception here is justified?

The fact that Fred and George know how to use Muggle lock-picking techniques at thirteen years old demonstrates in about three sentences that they are born troublemakers. They're using their powers of deception for good. They may be pranksters happily breaking into Harry's house, but they're hearts are also in the right place.

Compared to the Defense Against the Dark Arts instructors we get later on in the series, Professor Lockhart seems vain and stupid, but mostly harmless. Still, it's definitely a bad sign about his character that he actually bothers to interrupt class to pull out one of his twelve-year-old students and assure that student that some day he'll be lucky enough to be as famous as Professor Lockhart himself. Professor Lockhart is absurdly jealous of Harry, which, again, given that he's about three times Harry's age, is pretty pathetic.

First of all, it's sad that Professor Binns seems to think that anything interesting has to be fake, while "solid, believable, verifiable" fact has to be boring. Why can't things be both true and interesting in his class? Second of all, what do you think of Professor Binns's claim that history is "solid"? Doesn't history depend on who's telling it? Yes, history is based on research into contemporary documents and "verifiable fact." At the same time, the way you put together a historical narrative can really influence the impressions people get about who was right, who was wrong, and why things happened the way they did. For example, if it was Slytherin's followers telling us about the Chamber of Secrets, they would probably make it sound like the other three founders were being unreasonable and prejudiced against Slytherin's teachings when they drove him out of the castle. So, we think Professor Binns has too much faith in the power of history to be objective – and since the Chamber of Secrets does turn out to exist, we think J.K. Rowling is also being critical of his idea of "solid, believable" fact.

The thing that's odd about Professor Lockhart is less that he's willing to lie to make himself look better and more that he is so bad at it. How does anyone not see through this guy? Mrs. Weasley is a woman of the world, and yet she still seems really taken with Lockhart, and even after hearing this little speech to Harry, Hermione's crush continues on. Does Professor Lockhart remind you of anyone you know? What do you think drives his compulsive need to make himself look good all the time? Does Professor Lockhart believe that he is truly as great as he claims to be?

Professor Dumbledore obviously means well. We still have to wonder, though: why doesn't he just tell the people around him what he knows? It would save them all a lot of trouble, especially in the later novels. Oh, of course, it preserves the suspense of the books that he's not totally open about his suspicions ever, but it would be nice if he explained himself once in a while, and avoided these totally obscure and incomprehensible hints. Why do you think Professor Dumbledore doesn't just tell Professor McGonagall what he thinks has happened to Colin Creevey? Why must he be so mysterious all the time? What reasons does he give in the later novels for keeping secrets? What do you think his motivations are in not explaining everything he knows up front to his colleagues?

Lucius Malfoy is the single biggest opportunist in all of the Harry Potter novels. He's great at seizing chances to twist things to his advantage. These attacks on the Muggle-borns give him an apparently righteous reason to get rid of one of Voldemort's biggest enemies, Professor Dumbledore. Lucius is also remarkably good at saying the opposite of what he means and yet, making his true feelings perfectly clear. Obviously, he does not care at all if "there'll be no Muggle-borns left at Hogwarts." He's a callous, evil bastard, but he does have style and skill with language. How does Rowling show that Lucius is not to be trusted? Do we have any sense of his motivations beyond being an enemy to all things good?

Remember how the Sorting Hat confirms that Harry would've done well in Slytherin? Here's a great example. He can be sneaky when he needs to be. Harry expertly manipulates Professor McGonagall's good nature and her care for her students. It's really a pretty impressive piece of lying. So, much of Book 2 is about the ways in which Harry is or isn't Slytherin. Why is his skill with manipulation not Slytherin here? What makes his lying to Professor McGonagall OK?

Professor Lockhart is obviously a self-serving jerk. Still, he is also pointing out something that might be kind of true: people probably wouldn't make "some ugly old" warlock a celebrity the way Professor Lockhart has become a celebrity. Looks definitely do matter in marketing a person's image to the public. Professor Lockhart is a fraud, but he gets adoring fan mail because he is so handsome. What do you think is the link between celebrity and good looks? Does the public necessarily care what a hero looks like, if he or she has done genuinely great deeds? Can you be hideous and a hero in the public eye?