I mentioned a while ago that I was reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for the first time. Here's my review. (I don't feel much need to warn "Here there be spoilers," because I seem to be the last person on Earth to read this book. Still, I suppose...Here there be spoilers!)
Be also warned. The whole world is going to hate me for this post, but...whatever.
In a word, I’d describe Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone as “boring.” Just “boring.” It wasn’t TERRIBLE, and there were moments I enjoyed the boringness and zoned out over the book, but after books like Skulduggery Pleasant, I know exciting novels. This wasn’t one.
The characters were cliché and two-dimensional. Hermione was the brainy bookworm, Harry the chosen one, Ron the…other one. Little detail was given on their unique characteristics, internal contradictions, or reactions. Most often, they hardly reacted to anything, Harry least of all. When he did react strongly, he acted identically to Ron. (Ron and Harry both rose to their feet in anger at Malfoy, and so on.)
I disliked Dumbledore from the start because the author obviously expected me to think he was crazy wise, which he’s not, to have given Harry to the Dursleys instead of bringing him up in Wizard World. He did this because he thought the fame would go to Harry’s head and turn him evil. Well, plenty of people have turned evil, not from fame, but from abuse they endured (Hitler, for one), which is what Harry went through. If he could handle that, he could have handled fame. Fame was the better option, but Dumbledore either disagreed or didn't know how awful the Dursleys were. Either way, he didn't seem very wise.
While not unlikable himself, Neville Longbottom irritated me with a story of how his uncle dropped him out a window. This tale was told light-heartedly, but, um, dangling your kid out a window is child abuse. It's twisted, and you might drop them. Which is exactly what his uncle did. It’s not funny, and I hate when serious subjects are talked about light-heartedly.
The characters made it difficult to get attached to them or grasp who they were inside. I also felt distant from them because the majority of the book was narrative summary, right from the beginning, which was an unnecessary summary of the Dursleys’ life before they received Harry. Narrative summary is broad and detailess (Yes, I made up that word), making the book seem less like a story and more like a, well, summary. It always distances the readers from the story and makes it seem slower, which is good if you need a break from the action. But this book had little action.
The plot was boring, not only because I didn’t care about the characters and therefore didn’t care what happened to them plot-wise, but also because of the plot itself. Or lack thereof. The novel really had no plot until its last quarter. Mostly, the book detailed life at Hogwarts. School, bullies, mean teachers, cool teachers, sports, popularity or lack thereof, friends, illegal pets, and breaking the rules. Bor-ing. If I wanted to know of such stuff, I’d live my own life. I read so I don’t have to live. I don't have to live so I can read. Get up and go read, kids! When a plot did appear, it was very straightforward and consisted of Harry and friends racing to keep Voldemort from taking the Sorcerer’s Stone. They went through a series of obstacles, which broke my suspension of disbelief when they were tailor-made for Harry and Co. The obstacles just HAPPENED to be herbology, chess, logic, and broom-flying. Then Harry defeated Voldemort by touching him. No action, kung fu, sword fighting, wits matching, or anything. It was very simple. TOO simple. Then Dumbledore gave a speech about love, a good speech but the only inspiring part of the novel. Maybe I would have been more intrigued by the plot if I didn't already know it from the movie, but the movie came across drawn out and dull too, and I expected the book to be BETTER.
I don’t see what the general populace saw in this book. I couldn't relate to the characters, but I suppose different people relate to different characters. I couldn't get excited over the plot, but I suppose maybe...I dunno. I've almost never liked what the world at large liked. What kept other readers going for seven whole books? I barely finished the first one, which gave me no incentive to read the second. This book is to a great novel what a stick figure is to the Mona Lisa: sketchy.
3/10
In a word, I’d describe Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone as “boring.” Just “boring.” It wasn’t TERRIBLE, and there were moments I enjoyed the boringness and zoned out over the book, but after books like Skulduggery Pleasant, I know exciting novels. This wasn’t one.
The characters were cliché and two-dimensional. Hermione was the brainy bookworm, Harry the chosen one, Ron the…other one. Little detail was given on their unique characteristics, internal contradictions, or reactions. Most often, they hardly reacted to anything, Harry least of all. When he did react strongly, he acted identically to Ron. (Ron and Harry both rose to their feet in anger at Malfoy, and so on.)
I disliked Dumbledore from the start because the author obviously expected me to think he was crazy wise, which he’s not, to have given Harry to the Dursleys instead of bringing him up in Wizard World. He did this because he thought the fame would go to Harry’s head and turn him evil. Well, plenty of people have turned evil, not from fame, but from abuse they endured (Hitler, for one), which is what Harry went through. If he could handle that, he could have handled fame. Fame was the better option, but Dumbledore either disagreed or didn't know how awful the Dursleys were. Either way, he didn't seem very wise.
While not unlikable himself, Neville Longbottom irritated me with a story of how his uncle dropped him out a window. This tale was told light-heartedly, but, um, dangling your kid out a window is child abuse. It's twisted, and you might drop them. Which is exactly what his uncle did. It’s not funny, and I hate when serious subjects are talked about light-heartedly.
The characters made it difficult to get attached to them or grasp who they were inside. I also felt distant from them because the majority of the book was narrative summary, right from the beginning, which was an unnecessary summary of the Dursleys’ life before they received Harry. Narrative summary is broad and detailess (Yes, I made up that word), making the book seem less like a story and more like a, well, summary. It always distances the readers from the story and makes it seem slower, which is good if you need a break from the action. But this book had little action.
The plot was boring, not only because I didn’t care about the characters and therefore didn’t care what happened to them plot-wise, but also because of the plot itself. Or lack thereof. The novel really had no plot until its last quarter. Mostly, the book detailed life at Hogwarts. School, bullies, mean teachers, cool teachers, sports, popularity or lack thereof, friends, illegal pets, and breaking the rules. Bor-ing. If I wanted to know of such stuff, I’d live my own life. I read so I don’t have to live. I don't have to live so I can read. Get up and go read, kids! When a plot did appear, it was very straightforward and consisted of Harry and friends racing to keep Voldemort from taking the Sorcerer’s Stone. They went through a series of obstacles, which broke my suspension of disbelief when they were tailor-made for Harry and Co. The obstacles just HAPPENED to be herbology, chess, logic, and broom-flying. Then Harry defeated Voldemort by touching him. No action, kung fu, sword fighting, wits matching, or anything. It was very simple. TOO simple. Then Dumbledore gave a speech about love, a good speech but the only inspiring part of the novel. Maybe I would have been more intrigued by the plot if I didn't already know it from the movie, but the movie came across drawn out and dull too, and I expected the book to be BETTER.
I don’t see what the general populace saw in this book. I couldn't relate to the characters, but I suppose different people relate to different characters. I couldn't get excited over the plot, but I suppose maybe...I dunno. I've almost never liked what the world at large liked. What kept other readers going for seven whole books? I barely finished the first one, which gave me no incentive to read the second. This book is to a great novel what a stick figure is to the Mona Lisa: sketchy.
3/10
