Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
discussion
Did anyone else feel this book isn't a good start to a great series?
I completely agree. Luckily Chamber of Secrets is better
I read the first book and couldn't continue the series. I have watched all the movies though and love them.
I agree, the first book is the only HP book that I read just once... the rest I had to read for like 10x ^_^ No kidding! I read the rest so often that I know the words already by heart. But the first one... if I didn't watch the movie first, I probably won't read the rest of the books because I got a bit bored by it. The rest of the books in the series made me laugh though. ^_^
I completely disagree. I felt the first two books were the best and that the series went a bit downhill after that.
I didn't like this book, but loved the rest of the series. Maybe we just had high expectations?
@Derek, I think it's more of the way the first book was written? The tone? Because I can't truly say that I didn't like it, just my least favorite out of the series. Maybe it was written that way because it was the foundation, kind of the book where everything had to be introduced and all that...that's why I was a bit bored by it. I must say though, I love the Mirror of the Erised scenes
i luved them all,though me fav was the deathly hallows!!!<3hp!!!
I think it's perfect and suitable for childern
I first read this book 13 years ago, when I was nine, and I loved it. I think that is the age group that this book is best suited for. That being said this is my second least favorite book of the series (my least favorite is Chamber of Secrets). I think it's really just a case of the series maturing beyond this first book. It's not a bad book by any means, but it's not a good representation of what the rest of the series is.
I just started the first book (yeah, I'm a little behind), and I really felt like the writing style was very...meh. It reminds me of someone doing a very bad imitation of Roald Dahl. But I'm told by very reliable sources that you sort of have to limp your way through the first book, because she really comes into her style by the second. We'll see.
yep,i think it's not good as the others and the other book of harry potter is for young adult but this one is an exception but not bad
I think that it's not a bad book but the problem is that it is really for kids (of course it is not a problem because it was meant for kids, but what I mean is that with all this fandom the readers of HP are more and more not 12 anymore, but 16 and 20 and older). The rest of the books you can read and enjoy them when you're older (I read them all when I was 24) but the first book was like.. uggh, the story is good but if the rest are gonna be like this one.. I think this is something that Rowling made really well, the books grow up with the readers.And though the Philosopher's Stone is not a 5/5 book, it's a nice reading and a good introduction to the HP world.
I do love them all, but I think that like all of us writers, she was finding her niche.
I think it's hard to say that it was bad way to start the series. When this book came out the target audience was a younger crowd, and the book read like a normal 10 year old's chapter book, in my opinion. It was really cool to be able to grow up with the characters in the books as I did in real life. Back then, it was everything I needed to get me absorbed in the series. The re-read value at this point is very small since it seems a bit too, children-book-esq for me, but there's still a charm in it. As JK's writing matured, so did the target audience.
Show me any writer whose first work is their best unless, of course, they only wrote one. Even Harper Lee wrote in college before creating her masterpiece: To Kill a Mockingbird.
Fromm Harry Potter Books 5 onwards, I might say that Jo was good. She has improved in her writing. There less narrated events and more detailed parts. the plots becme complex also. But From Books 1 to 4, it's kind of poorly written especially the Sorcerer's Stone. I think it was only because of the wonderful series plot that it made it to the Hollywood. But if only the book's plot, it was not that good.
Anna wrote: "I think that it's not a bad book but the problem is that it is really for kids (of course it is not a problem because it was meant for kids, but what I mean is that with all this fandom the readers..."Larry wrote: "Show me any writer whose first work is their best unless, of course, they only wrote one. Even Harper Lee wrote in college before creating her masterpiece: To Kill a Mockingbird."
I agree with all this. The longer any writer writes the more original and complex the story gets, given when authors pray on a story for too long it can get worse.
When I read sorcerer's stone I was really, really, really disappointed. I expected a lot of it and was let down. However, all the book nerds I know (whom are my best friends) love this series and I can only guess you need to grow up with it to love it so fully.
(When I was in elementary school, I was convinced popular literature was automatically terrible and shallow. Potter was very popular at my schools. So while I was a book nerd my entire life, like those I hang out with, Potter was not my favorite fictional character. Especially now that the series is ending, I feel like it's almost required a book nerd have read the series to fit in their discussions.)
Does the series get any better? I've yet to push myself to finish it, with such a bad(and late) start.
Caressa wrote: "Anna wrote: "I think that it's not a bad book but the problem is that it is really for kids (of course it is not a problem because it was meant for kids, but what I mean is that with all this fando..."It really does get much better. Sorcerer's Stone is a book for children, as is the second book, Chamber of Secrets. After the first two though the series becomes much more complex, much darker, and much more interesting to older readers.
Dani wrote: "When I finally read the Harry Potter books at the beginning of this year, I was really excited about it. But, I was really disappointed in this book. I didn't really enjoy. The first half felt r..."I finally gave in an started reading the series with Order of the Phoenix - which premiered while I was a supervisor at Toys R Us (and thereby gave me the excuse of, "Well, I get a good discount...") and fell in love with the concept.
But I always find myself warning "new" readers of the series that the first book is 'cheesy,' and to not let them pass judgement on the rest of the series before reading it. My exact words? "If you can make it through the Philosopher's Stone, you'll very much enjoy the darker twists and turns later on."
However, for the non-adults (i.e., the young teen crowd it was written for) the first book is a perfect introduction into a new world.
THIS IS THE BEST BOOK IN THE SERIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I LOVE HARRY!!!!!
I've started reading the Harry Potter books a few weeks because everyone is saying the final movie installment is phenomenal, but with books you always get more depth and understanding, and I wanted to get completely into it so I could really appreciate the conclusion. I didn't care for the first two books at all, and had to force myself to read them. With Prisoner of Azkaban, I became intrigued, and by Goblet of Fire, I was completely sucked in. I've been watching the movies after I finish each book. It's been so much fun. Hermione is a great character!
If I hadn't heard so much praise over the years, I wouldn't have bothered with the series.
I heard that when the first book was written it was meant to be a stand alone and the others were only decided upon after the first was finished. Anyone know if thats true?
I loved all of the books! The last book was definitely better than the last movie! I think the movies would be better if they were more like the books! There are so many great things that were left out of each movie!
CADIDE! YOU ARE TOOOOTALLY CORRECT!
Tiffany wrote: "I heard that when the first book was written it was meant to be a stand alone and the others were only decided upon after the first was finished. Anyone know if thats true?"From Wikipedia....
Then Rowling's mother died and, to cope with her pain, Rowling transferred her own anguish to the orphan Harry.[9] Rowling spent six years working on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and in 1996 obtained a grant of £4,000 from the Scottish Arts Council, which enabled her to finish the book and plan the sequels.
Which lends me to believe that a series was always her intention.
All the books were great including the first one.
those of you who are yelling at them for saying they don't like the harry potter books obviously don't believe in exspressing ones opinions. I am one of the few young people today that have read the works of great writers such as moby dick, time machine, anthem, the legend of sleepy hollow, etc. Where has good literature gone?????
oops wrong discussion. I thought I was on the one about a person hating harry potter
Stephen wrote: "I completely disagree. I felt the first two books were the best and that the series went a bit downhill after that."I feel the exact same way!! The first 3 books were great, but then in the fourth book when Voldemort returns, it sets off a chain reaction that makes the series get worse and worse. Especially book 5. I was so bored that I actually skipped the middle of the book and read the ending, which is something I have NEVER EVER done before.
Caressa wrote: "Anna wrote: "I think that it's not a bad book but the problem is that it is really for kids (of course it is not a problem because it was meant for kids, but what I mean is that with all this fando..."I believe that the series gets much better in the later books. I think most people agree with me, though some might say the first two were the best. I think the first one was more of an introduction to the wizarding world, it set up the foundation for the next books.
Juliet wrote: "Caressa wrote: "Anna wrote: "I think that it's not a bad book but the problem is that it is really for kids (of course it is not a problem because it was meant for kids, but what I mean is that wit..."I'm glad to hear all the praise for the series; I'll continue reading them. Thanks a bunch everyone. :p
Tiffany wrote: "I heard that when the first book was written it was meant to be a stand alone and the others were only decided upon after the first was finished. Anyone know if thats true?"Yes that is true. The author actually started the first book by writing the first chapter in a resteraunt on a napkin! she says the idea just popped into her head. I am happy it did!
Yes that is true. The author actually started the first book by writing the first chapter in a resteraunt on a napkin! she says the idea just popped into her head. I am happy it did!she was actually on a train to london and had come up with most of the characters by the time she reached kings cross.... well thats what it says on the sleeve of my copy of order of the phoenix
I have found the the style of writing and story lines have matured with each book so felt the first book was a little childy for me
The first time I read the first book, I was totally not impressed. It took a lot for my friends to convince me to read the second one.After that, I was hooked. Re-reading the first book was much more enjoyable, but only because I knew where things were leading.
Caressa wrote: "Anna wrote: "I think that it's not a bad book but the problem is that it is really for kids (of course it is not a problem because it was meant for kids, but what I mean is that with all this fando..."Why push yourself to finish something you already don't like? You're allowed to have different tastes. I never worried about what other people were reading. I read what I wanted, from Homer to the Knights of the Round Table to tales of American Indian tribes to Robert Heinlein. I read the first Harry Potter and watched a couple of the films. To me, they were very much an updated clone of Homer's Odyssey, with wizards and assorted bad guys instead of Medussa, Zeus and other characters.
Well I know that JK had to jam it into a word limit, and that can often bring out the best and worst of authors. Like so many others, the first movie hooked me in, and that was well paced. I think the first book was charmingly short in that it had that traditional story-book feel through narration. The characters were well established, and even through they were rather shallow at first, and like caricatures, it gave room for them to develop and flesh out in the later part of the series. The narrative style matures with the characters. And with the knowledge about horcruxes in the later books, we can see how faithful JK has been to her original story line even in the very early stages of the series, through this book. We approach Hogwarts and the magical world, the darker side, with the same naive and awestruck spirit as Harry through the more "childish" aspects of the Philosopher's Stone. After all, the book is 'supposed' to be childlike - its a fantasy castle, and a tale about school kids. I think so much is set up in the first book - it is tumbling with ideas about the magical world faster than we can comprehend, but even though it might be unbalanced, it mirrors how Harry experiences it. I also like that the first 3 books can stand alone as individual adventure stories, whereas from 4 onwards it really starts to feel like a saga that is connected and a little too 'realistic' for my taste. Not to mention, the first book really makes Hogwarts itself a character in the way that the movies can't, and some of the later books somewhat neglect.
the first book is awesome and every thing fits i love the books and movies
You need to keep in mind that the first book was written for little children. Rowling only started writing for adults when they became popular with all ages. Then she started to show what she is capable of writing wise, but I still enjoyed the first one.
Well K.C is write although if it wasn't then i would have to say it wasn't as good to start the series.
I started reading the Harry Potter series to help me with learning a second language (Russian). I was looking for children's books that had intermediate vocabulary and were readily available in different languages. Harry Potter fit what I was looking for. I read the first four books in Russian, with a lot of help from the English versions. I noticed my interest in the story picking up in the third book. After the fourth book, I couldn't stand the slower pace and I had to switch to English only. I do agree that the later books are more interesting. If I were reading simply for enjoyment, I might not have continued reading long enough to be hooked in, although I do think there were some great elements in the first few stories. They didn't really 'gel' until the end of the fourth book.
On the contrary I think “The Sorcerers Stone” is a great beginning to the series. In this book you see the wizard world through the eyes of an innocent young boy Harry Potter. He is in awe of all the magical things around him. As the series goes on and Harry gets older the world loses it's magical wonder and his perspective is darker and as an effect the stories become more adult. Now what I believe would be cool is if Rowling would do a rewrite of “The Sorcerers Stone” through the perspective of an adult character such as Snape.
I never liked the Harry Potter books that much but I do think the concept was very creative. I recently re-read it and found the writing very basic but it did suit me at the time I first started the series in third grade. The books got much more complex as Harry grew up and so did readers.
Its the book that started the phenomenon so I can't say I agree. Its not an excellent book, it could have been better in parts but honestly the series gets better with each book and I thought it was a good start to the series.
I have to admit the books get better and better as they go on. So yes, the first is not as good as the last in my opinion, and the first in particular can be a bit hard to read because it is more obvious with this book that it was aimed at young children. I adore this series. My only real complaint with the Harry Potter series is the feeling that you are meant to grow up with the books - the first one is for when you are younger and the last for when you are older. So if one were to sit down and read the whole series at once, the younger readers will find the later books to be a bit out of their league while the older readers will find the earlier books to be a bit immature. For those who actually did grow up with Harry Potter, it made total sense at the time. But for long term, it can be a bit confusing for people. However, I feel the series is such a good one, that it's only real fault I feel it has is easily forgiven and overlooked. I think all the books can be appreciated by anyone.
It took me along time to pick up my first Harry Potter book. I was distraught because I had heard how he was treated and abused by the dursley's and i wasn't sure I could read it. My son who hates reading got hooked on the series at school. It wasn't until I took him to the midnight review of #5 that I started reading HP. After hearing everyone in the very long line talking about the book in what seemed like a different language piqued my interest. So I picked up number one and read till I caught up to my son. I have a hard time picking my fav it would be between 5&7.
I loved the first harry potter and thought it was a great start to the series
Amanda wrote: "I've only read the first one and I didn't continue with the series because I was disappointed. I realize it's just a children's book, but it pales in comparison to the metaphor, characterization, a..."What she said.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Does anyone else believe this was a not so-good first book?