Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
So after seeing HP 7.2 in theaters (and thoroughly crying my eyes out for 45 minutes straight or so), I think I have been subconsciously denying the end of the era. I started listening to some Harry Potter podcasts on my long drives to work (my favorite being PotterCast), and after a few weeks decided that I wanted to start rereading the series, something I wanted to do ever since the months before Deathly Hallows came out.
Last night I finished Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (or Philosopher's, if you're British), which I haven't read for at least six years, probably more. I know I last reread it at my old house, and I can't imagine I read it anytime after freshman year of high school, so maybe it's been a decade. I remember rereading it multiple times (one specific memory I have is of me starting the book in the guest room/my grandparent's room) and always having a feeling of being home/in a familiar place when rereading it. You know, getting a warm fuzzy feeling reading those first few chapters of Harry's journey.
Unfortunately, I can't say I got the same feeling. I was very excited reading the first chapter, with the discussion between McGonagall, Dumbledore and Hagrid, the mentioning of important names that mean nothing at the time, the Put-Outer, etc. But, the writing I find now a bit too juvenile to fully enjoy and immerse myself in. It was all very "These are wizards! They're crazy characters! They're having a grown-up discussion!" if that makes any sense. Also, maybe I just know too much. I was trying to read it as a new reader, but I just got too excited when Sirius's name was mentioned, or when Quirrell was introduced, or when Dumbledore (falsely) explains to Harry that Snape was protecting him to repay James Potter. As if! There were other such inconsistencies I noticed to that end, which I'm not angry about since I wouldn't expect the outcome of the whole series to have been lined up at this point, but they were slightly annoying.
Some changes the movie made that I only noticed after the reread: Neville gets detention in the forest, not Ron, as he is in the hospital wing after Norbert bites him; the trio run into Fluffy because Harry is supposed to have a Midnight Duel with Malfoy; Neville is actually with the trio in this scene; lots of meetings between Snape and Quirrell did not make it into the movie.
But something I really took notice of after reading the final chapter: the book is very Muggle-action oriented, and magic is very limited. Sure, there's lots of atmospheric magic, like ghosts, floating candles in the Great Hall, staircases at Hogwarts changing on their own, and magical creatures like unicorns and centaurs. However, there is very little magic mentioned that is in the form of a spell performed by a character, and only three spells mentioned by name: Petrificus Totalus, or the Body-Bind Curse, Alohomora, and Wingardium Leviosa. Furthermore, these spells are only used once, to advance the plot at key points throughout the story. I was very surprised that not even Lumos was mentioned...that seems like the most basic spell!
More specifically, I noticed there weren't many references to wands outside of Harry getting his at Diagon Alley. During the second Quidditch game even, Neville finds it strange that Ron and Hermione have brought their wands to protect Harry from "Snape". The idea of a wizard walking around without his wand on weekends seems bizarre to me, since it's the main way wizards interact with the world! The various protections of the Stone are also very physical: playing a song for Fluffy; flying a broom to catch a flying key; commanding chess pieces (no spells involved); using logic to drink a certain potion. The fight between Harry and Quirrell involves no spells (other than Quirrell snapping his fingers to conjure ropes to tie up Harry), and reads like a struggle in any other book: "...Harry felt Quirrell's hand close on his wrist." "...Quirrell lunged, knocking Harry clean off his feet, landing on top of him, both hands around Harry's neck..." "Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse" hints at the AK,but the word "hand" as opposed to "wand" strikes me as very interesting, and unusual. I may have to use a future book to really make my point, but I feel like in later books, those passages would be full of "red light" and "Expelliarmus" and "wave of his wand" types of language.
Starting from this paragraph I'm continuing this entry about a week later. Another inconsistency I'm proud I discovered through wikipedia: Nicolas Flamel (who existed in real life) was born in 1330, so if he is 665 years old at the end of the book, that puts the year of the book at 1995. But, according to the timeline based on Nearly Headless Nick's death day, the year should be 1991. So, yea. I'm a nerd.
Anyway, much-needed final thoughts: the book was fun, although definitely more for kids than the later installments; I was surprised by a lot of details that I forgot about after multiple movie viewings; I liked reading the Quidditch chapters again; lots of trio action, but really more like Ron and Harry action with Hermione and occasionally Neville tagging along; I forgot how much you really don't see Dumbledore in these first books. Can't wait for Number 2!
Last night I finished Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (or Philosopher's, if you're British), which I haven't read for at least six years, probably more. I know I last reread it at my old house, and I can't imagine I read it anytime after freshman year of high school, so maybe it's been a decade. I remember rereading it multiple times (one specific memory I have is of me starting the book in the guest room/my grandparent's room) and always having a feeling of being home/in a familiar place when rereading it. You know, getting a warm fuzzy feeling reading those first few chapters of Harry's journey.
Unfortunately, I can't say I got the same feeling. I was very excited reading the first chapter, with the discussion between McGonagall, Dumbledore and Hagrid, the mentioning of important names that mean nothing at the time, the Put-Outer, etc. But, the writing I find now a bit too juvenile to fully enjoy and immerse myself in. It was all very "These are wizards! They're crazy characters! They're having a grown-up discussion!" if that makes any sense. Also, maybe I just know too much. I was trying to read it as a new reader, but I just got too excited when Sirius's name was mentioned, or when Quirrell was introduced, or when Dumbledore (falsely) explains to Harry that Snape was protecting him to repay James Potter. As if! There were other such inconsistencies I noticed to that end, which I'm not angry about since I wouldn't expect the outcome of the whole series to have been lined up at this point, but they were slightly annoying.
Some changes the movie made that I only noticed after the reread: Neville gets detention in the forest, not Ron, as he is in the hospital wing after Norbert bites him; the trio run into Fluffy because Harry is supposed to have a Midnight Duel with Malfoy; Neville is actually with the trio in this scene; lots of meetings between Snape and Quirrell did not make it into the movie.
But something I really took notice of after reading the final chapter: the book is very Muggle-action oriented, and magic is very limited. Sure, there's lots of atmospheric magic, like ghosts, floating candles in the Great Hall, staircases at Hogwarts changing on their own, and magical creatures like unicorns and centaurs. However, there is very little magic mentioned that is in the form of a spell performed by a character, and only three spells mentioned by name: Petrificus Totalus, or the Body-Bind Curse, Alohomora, and Wingardium Leviosa. Furthermore, these spells are only used once, to advance the plot at key points throughout the story. I was very surprised that not even Lumos was mentioned...that seems like the most basic spell!
More specifically, I noticed there weren't many references to wands outside of Harry getting his at Diagon Alley. During the second Quidditch game even, Neville finds it strange that Ron and Hermione have brought their wands to protect Harry from "Snape". The idea of a wizard walking around without his wand on weekends seems bizarre to me, since it's the main way wizards interact with the world! The various protections of the Stone are also very physical: playing a song for Fluffy; flying a broom to catch a flying key; commanding chess pieces (no spells involved); using logic to drink a certain potion. The fight between Harry and Quirrell involves no spells (other than Quirrell snapping his fingers to conjure ropes to tie up Harry), and reads like a struggle in any other book: "...Harry felt Quirrell's hand close on his wrist." "...Quirrell lunged, knocking Harry clean off his feet, landing on top of him, both hands around Harry's neck..." "Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse" hints at the AK,but the word "hand" as opposed to "wand" strikes me as very interesting, and unusual. I may have to use a future book to really make my point, but I feel like in later books, those passages would be full of "red light" and "Expelliarmus" and "wave of his wand" types of language.
Starting from this paragraph I'm continuing this entry about a week later. Another inconsistency I'm proud I discovered through wikipedia: Nicolas Flamel (who existed in real life) was born in 1330, so if he is 665 years old at the end of the book, that puts the year of the book at 1995. But, according to the timeline based on Nearly Headless Nick's death day, the year should be 1991. So, yea. I'm a nerd.
Anyway, much-needed final thoughts: the book was fun, although definitely more for kids than the later installments; I was surprised by a lot of details that I forgot about after multiple movie viewings; I liked reading the Quidditch chapters again; lots of trio action, but really more like Ron and Harry action with Hermione and occasionally Neville tagging along; I forgot how much you really don't see Dumbledore in these first books. Can't wait for Number 2!