Kira's Reviews > Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Mar 30, 12

bookshelves: ya

Okay, let's see here.

I somehow recall reading (and not particularly enjoying) a book called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. So what is this sorcerer GoodReads speaks of?

Granted, my copy was a UK one, and came out eons before the movies. I think I was about twelve when I read this.

Ugh. You know, props to Ms. Rowling. She's an absolutely fabulous writer and her imagination is completely mid-blowing. I just cannot endorse stories about witches/wizards/quidditch. They just don't do it for me. I like me a bit more edginess. You know, behemoths. Big hairy werewolves that eat people. Zombies, bitches!

So, yeah. Not for me. But still worthy of success. My rating is purely based on personal preference.
29 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-12 of 12) (12 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Dinjolina Aaaaaaaaw...poor you :)
It was kind of fab 10 years ago when pnr was just one big fanfic :)

Kira Yeah, you're right. I miss those old days.

Kira Yeah, I agree, Cillian. Honestly, I hate these books. They're boring to me. Just not my thing. I'm not interested in witches and magic brooms 'n shit.

Wendy Darling Hm, I knew I liked you ladies! They're not really my thing either. I appreciate how imaginative they are (and I'm glad they get people reading), but the first few I read weren't complex/dark enough to hold my interest.

I also got frustrated with how Harry only ever really reacted to things rather than taking action himself. People tell me the later ones are better...but those same people are also rabid fans. I'm glad they make people happy, I'm just not one of them really.

Caitlin It's funny because the first two books didn't really impress me. It was when things starting getting dark, like soul sucking dementors and when Voldy was actually killing little kids, was when I got addicted.

But I can see why witches and brooms sticks is a snore.

Tatiyana White Ditto. I think I was in 5th grade when the fifth book was released and I finally admitted how uninterested I was in the series. I didn't even bother with the movies. Rowling is very talented though.

Skyla I actually read the third book first so I was introduced to the series when it started getting darker. I can remember getting hooked on the books after reading that and my sister telling me I was pathetic and making my life miserable for years afterwards and then one day she asked to read them because her boyfriend had read them and enjoyed them as a "novelty". So I lent her the first four and she came back saying the first two were very juvenile but the series got better after them.

I can totally understand them not being everyone's cup of tea and if my Aunt hadn't of given me the third book for my birthday that year I probably wouldn't have become so obsessed with them. Harry Potter came into my life during a very difficult time in my life and it sounds incredibly melodramatic but they gave me a reason to keep going because I just had to know what happened next (If I read a book in a series I usually try to plow theough the series and find out what happens because I just have to know).

Now that I'm older I can look back on them and see the flaws but at the same time I look at them fondly...besides Rowling basically opened the door for a lot of children's and YA writers to get published because the books crossed the age lines. Admittedly there were others that helped but Harry Potter did lead to mass publishing of some great books and some crap ones too =)

Skyla L. C. wrote: "Besides, The Phil's Stone is kinda dumb compared to The Sorcerer's Stone. That one I loved. But I started with the second, which had a lot more to it than in the movie. If you remember Sir Nicholas..."

The Philospher's Stone and The Sorcerer's Stone are the same book. The Sorcerer's Stone is just the US edition.

E.E. They replaced "philosopher" with "sorcerer" because they thought Americans were too dumb to know what a philosopher is. They is the publishers.

message 10: by Sean (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sean Who changed the wand into a gun.

message 11: by [deleted user] (new)

Screw the wands
Shit just got real.

message 12: by Lee (new) - added it

Lee Anon Well, the Harry Potter series aren't very structurally solid, it was mostly J.K. Rowling letting her imagination off the leash, or at least that's what it looks like. It's got magic that sometimes doesn't make sense (how does one make up a new spell, for example?), it's a story about the human world and magical world coexisting in secrecy, but it's not explained why. I wouldn't find myself entertained by it, were I to give it another read.

back to top