Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J. K. Rowling

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone" by J. K. Rowling is a book I highly recommend, especially if, like me, it’s been 7 or 8 years since you’ve been through the text. I have a few grievances with the book, make no mistake, but this book is definitely entertaining, with complicated and contrasting characters and personable heroes in a rich, multilayered environment of discovery and mystery. If you haven’t read this book, you should read it.

I originally included a section here on why having a book about magic is not evil, but it doesn’t really fit in this review. I’ve included the text in a post-script if you would like to read it.

Allow me to vent for a moment. This book is actually called “Harry Potter and the PHILOSPHER’S Stone.” Why do we have the version we have? The philosopher’s stone is an actual legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone) and Nicolas Flamel was an actual person tied to the legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Flamel). The “sorcerer’s” stone isn’t anything. I know, it’s not really a big deal, but I just wish the “American” version wasn’t the less interesting version, that’s all. Don’t get me wrong, some of the changes between the two books do improve the readability (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ps/differences-ps.html), my issue is just with the substitution of “sorcerer” for “philosopher”. It also begs the question: in the movie, did they shoot two separate scenes for every section that included the phrase “sorcerer’s stone”? Do Britain’s see a different movie than I do? Does this British version come in a format that you can watch in the US? So many unanswered questions!!! (Alright, so in today’s wiki-age there’s no such thing as an unanswered question: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher under “Filming”.)

Believe it or not, this is actually the first time I’ve read “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”, and I’ve never actually read any of the other books in the Harry Potter series. That’s not to say I don’t know the text; all of the books have been read to me in their entirety by my wife, Britt. However, this being the first time that I’ve read the text myself made the reading an interesting experience, and made the story seem very fresh. Knowing how the entire series transpires and resolves makes the wonderful Easter eggs throughout the book more interesting (like the mention of Serious Black in the first chapter). The biggest strength of the book is the dynamic range in the personalities of its characters, but a close second is the setting of Hogwarts. This setting allows for a very natural introduction and exposition of many magical ideas, and allows for a nearly unlimited number of contrasting plot developments. The end is exciting and riveting, but I do have to say that I prefer the movie’s rendering of the ultimate foiling of the villain to that of the book; the book’s version just seems much…wetter. Harry Potter is an unlikely and endearing hero, and his friends contrast him so perfectly that the story ends up demonstrating many valuable life-lessons, like the value of teamwork, integrity and courage. A telling mark of an enduring book is its ability to be interesting the second time you read the story, and this is a quality that exists very solidly in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.”

Needless to say, I highly recommend the book. Despite my frustrations with the removal of “Philosopher’s Stone” from the American version, I find the book to be well written, interesting and very entertaining. If you haven’t read this book, you should borrow a copy today from your friend who keeps bugging you to read it. The book is good enough that you won’t even mind that smug I-told-you-so look on their face.

P.S.
I’d like to put in a plug for why the use of magic in a story plot is NOT evil. I certainly understand why magic can seem inappropriate when you try to mesh it into a spiritual context. Magic can certainly be presented as the antithesis of the power of God. When we see Jesus Christ use the power of God in the scriptures, it often seems like magic, but Christ makes it clear that he is doing the will of the Father and not his own will, and he often attributes the ability for the power to work to a trait (namely faith) in the receiver of the power. This fits the best definition I’ve heard for the ability to wield God’s power: It is the ability to serve others. Contrast this with magic, which is usually depicted as being mastered by an individual so that it can be forced to do their will. Likewise, incantations are the antithesis to prayer. Prayer is an act of seeking to communicate with a supernatural superior, and thereafter trying to learn what answers have come from the supplication. Again, the expectation is that no matter what is prayed for, the answer will be according to God’s will, not according to the will of the party who is praying. Incantations, on the other hand, are repetitive phrases that can force the supernatural power to submit to the one saying the incantation. I could go on, but I think it is clear why some seem to think that magic and religion collide so viciously; it is because some would have you believe that they are competing for legitimacy.

There are two ideas, then, as to what magic power is. One idea is that for magic to exist, God could not, and therefore to suggest that magic exists is to suggest that God does not exist. The other idea is that to study magic is to seek power from those who oppose God. This is not how it magic treated in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”.

In this book, magic is just a cool version of science. Some examples? Herbology, the study of magical plants and their uses, is akin to many ways we study plants in the real world, just more interesting. Aloe Vera soothes your skin (boring); magical plants can make you breathe underwater (cool). Potions is magical chemistry. Mix the wrong chemicals in the real world and your explosion will likely kill you (scary, dangerous); Add porcupine quills before taking your cauldron of the fire and the explosion will be painful, amusing and immediately reversible (funny, poor old Neville, why is Snape so mean?). In “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”, magic is treated as a source of power (akin to electricity) that taps into both the supernatural and emotional world around us, and Hogwarts school is dedicated to the science of how to use this source of power. Magic, then, is a mixture of science with imagination, and adding imagination to science is interesting, entertaining and valuable. It is NOT evil.