What would happen if someone wearing glasses were to look at a Basilisk?

Question

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Hermione, Colin Creevey, Sir Nicholas, Mrs. Norris, and others became petrified because they saw the Basilisk through something else - with the exception of Sir Nicholas who looked directly at it but could not die again. Hermione and Mrs. Norris had both seen it through a reflection and Colin had seen it through his camera, so what would happen to someone wearing glasses? Would that person die because he or she saw it directly or simply become petrified because he or she had seen it through something else?

Answer 1

JK Rowling answered this in an interview with Edinburgh “cub” reporters in 2005 (emphasis mine):

If you see a basilisk and you are wearing glasses, will they protect you? And if they do, why did Moaning Myrtle die, and if they don't, why not?

That is a really good question. And I have been asked that before. I had to decide the glasses couldn't protect you. I just had to, because obviously there would be quite a few people at Hogwarts who were wearing glasses and I thought that might cause me plot difficulties, so I decided that glasses alone wouldn't protect you.

But as you know, I had Justin protected by the camera lens, so I think I am open for criticism there, but the way I explained to myself he was looking through several lenses and wasn't actually seeing the thing directly, it wasn't through his eyeline, when you look through a camera you are looking through the lens, it is a little distorted. You can argue with me on that and I wouldn't blame you but that is how I explained it to my self at the time.

I assume when she says “Justin” she means “Colin”, since Justin was actually petrified through Nearly Headless Nick.

This also touches upon the discussion of cameras in the comments on Thaddeus’s answer. I'll add that Hermione believed that seeing the basilisk through a mirror was sufficient to avoid death, and a lot of cameras contain mirror arrays, which might have protected him.

Answer 2

They would most assuredly die.

• In the case of reflections, the force of the death stare is mitigated because it is a reflection of the actual event resulting in petrification rather than instant death.

• In the case of Colin's camera, he is seeing the image reflected from the mirror within the camera again blunting the force of the basilisk death stare.

• Glasses on the other hand still allow the viewer to see the basilisk directly and with perfect focus, thus ensuring their death.

• Regarding the camera, the error falls upon the writer, whose assumption may have included a mirror in her idea of the camera, allowing Colin to survive and simply didn't check to be certain of the specifics.

• Myrtle wore glasses and she still died. So it is safe to assume wearing glasses can be discounted as a protection against the deadly stare of the basilisk. In a world as filled with magical threats as JK Rowlings, I think if mere glasses were to be a protection from the stare of a basilisk, such information would also find its way into useful lore.

See additional information at: Why Did Colin Creevey's Muggle Camera Work at Hogwarts?

Answer 3

J.K. Rowling, regarding the Basilisk and glasses:

Bethan Roberts reporting for The Times Educational Supplement: - In the second book, if you see a basilisk and you are wearing glasses, will they protect you? And if they do, why did Moaning Myrtle die, and if they don't, why not?

J.K. Rowling: That is a really good question. And I have been asked that before. I had to decide the glasses couldn't protect you. I just had to, because obviously there would be quite a few people at Hogwarts who were wearing glasses and I thought that might cause me plot difficulties, so I decided that glasses alone wouldn't protect you.

But as you know, I had Justin¹ protected by the camera lens, so I think I am open for criticism there, but the way I explained to myself he was looking through several lenses and wasn't actually seeing the thing directly, it wasn't through his eyeline, when you look through a camera you are looking through the lens, it is a little distorted. You can argue with me on that and I wouldn't blame you but that is how I explained it to my self at the time.

<sub>¹J.K. Rowling mistakenly assigned the camera to Justin rather than Colin in this interview response. I'm pretty sure we all know it was Colin Creevey who saw the Basilisk through his camera's lens.

Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005 via Accio Quote</sub>

And I'll go ahead and leave my comment from above as part of this answer: The question doesn't ask about contingencies. It merely asks about glasses. Voldemort used the Basilisk to kill Moaning Myrtle and then proceeded to use her death to create his first Horcrux. Myrtle wore glasses. I think it's safe to assume that an individual who saw the Basilisk through eyeglasses would be killed. If I'm interpreting HP correctly, it's the gaze of the Basilisk that kills, not the victim's perception of the Basilisk's gaze (i.e. it doesn't matter if the prescription isn't perfect or the victim's eyesight is blurry).

Answer 4

I think that wearing glasses COULD protect you from the basilisk. Rowling only said that it won't do because it causes to much plot difficulties. Why cant she just work out the plot difficulties and say our theory is correct because there is no other reason why not to believe this theory.