| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ozedge |
Harry Potter and the Philo...Sorcerer's Stone |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 372 (09/14/09 17:56:15) What's going on? |
I didnt realise until reading this blog post that this book was released in the US under Sorcerer's Stone where in the rest of the world it was the
Philosophers Stone
I originally read the blog post title and thought it was a parody book or something
|
||
|
Kaladhan |
|||
|
Posts: 1227 (09/14/09 18:20:41) French Bastard |
Wikipedia has a good article on it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone#USA_publication_and_reception I think we got the Philosopher's Stone in Canada. |
||
|
madfox |
|||
|
Posts: 7016 (09/15/09 02:01:01) That's a lot of posts. |
Funny, isn't it?
In any event, in regards of the book being a children's book and adults liking it. I wonder whether adults judge the books on the whole series and not just the first part. The story gets grimmer and they are probably for a more mature audience the further one gets in the series. It is probably done on purpose to let the series grow with the reader, although I wonder how that works out not the whole series is published and children can read all books in one go. Hary certainly gets more of a personality, and in one of the later books (I think it was the Order of the Phoenix - but I am not too good in remember titles and what happens in what book) he is somewhat unlikable due to his constant anger (puberty?) and outbursts towards innocent bystanders and friends. In the end, I liked the series, but I have a soft spot for children books and I certainly would not call them my favorite books. I am curious how Monte thinks of the later parts
|
||
|
Hydromaster113 |
|||
|
Posts: 4106 (09/15/09 07:55:13) Some guy posting for a long time |
Redwall is one of my all-time favorite books. I am an adult, and I would never characterize Redwall as a book for adults, but that doesn't keep it from
being one of my favorite books. Some adults simply like stories for children; especially ones which they first read when they were children themselves.
Harry definitely starts off as an everyman, and he most certainly grows into his own character as the stories progress. At the beginning he's a pretty neutral self-insert, in the middle he's a thick-headed and often insensitive teenager, and towards the end it's hard not to admire him at times. Looking back after finishing the series, I find him to be one of the most compelling characters, though also the most subtle. He remains a bit of an everyman, but still a tangible and believable character. There's an insidious charm in Harry. He's completely uninterested in glory, fame or power, but it's not because he's too dim to grasp the appeal of these things, nor because he's too noble to accept them. He has a heart of gold, but he's so reserved that you don't really see it much. He isn't an in-your-face hero or a bleeding-heart benefactor, he's kind of a quiet hero (and almost reminds me of Sam in that respect). You're also never really introduced to him. Like I (and others) have said, his character develops slowly over time. When you first start to notice his behavior (i.e, when the prhase "That sounds like Harry" first has meaning), it's almost a surprise. |
||
|
nstr |
|||
|
Posts: 8 (09/15/09 22:03:21) |
madfox wrote:The books are written almost exclusively from Harry's point of view and it makes sense that the stories become more involved as Harry gets older. I really enjoy the books and have read them more than once. I did not start reading them until I saw The Goblet of Fire at the movies. I think I enjoyed the books more because I saw some of the movies first. The farther the movies get away from the original book, The Sorcerer's Stone, the more changes there are in the recent movies. The Sorcerer's Stone movie is a very close adaptation of the book. Once we get to The Order of the Phoneix and The Half-Blood Prince the story is still essentially the same in the movie, but most of the depth of story from the books are missing. There are so many reasons why I like the books it would be difficult to enumerate them all here. One thing that always amazes me is the internal consistency of the story. Even after reading them several times you can tell how much planning was put into writing these books. If you think The Sorcerer's Stone is a good book then I think you will enjoy the later books even more. |
||
|
amerigoV |
|||
|
Posts: 295 (09/16/09 05:59:41) Spooky |
I started reading the books after I saw the first movie. I am glad I did - the actor's faces and voices popped into my head from the movies as I read. I
think that helped alleviate "but it is not as good as the book" syndrome that occurs with an adaption (I think many times people are turned off to
the movie version due to the actors not "looking and sounding" like what was in their head from when they read the book).
|
||
|
Micah4 |
|||
|
Posts: 653 (09/16/09 06:55:22) What's going on? |
I have a friend who refuses to read any of the books until he has seen all the movies. He teaches English, and his Ph.D. dissertation was on Shakespeare as
literature, play, movie and television performance.
He wants the opposite of what I wanted. I wanted to read each of the books before seeing its movie. I wanted the experience of imagining Dumbledore for myself, before seeing either Richard Harris or Michael Gambon, both of whom I think are fabulous. He wants to experience the stories as theater (big screen) before reading them. Unfortunately, he has hit many 'spoilers' along the way. I also credit Harry Potter with a resurgence of juvenile literacy. Rowling got kids reading again, in my view.
Fairy tales are more than true, not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten.
--G K Chesterton |
||
|
JoeyJoeJoeJunShabadoo |
|
||
|
Posts: 1634 (01/05/10 15:18:05) That's the woist name I ever hoird |
I'm reading them to my kids. Until this I'd only read books 1 and 2 and hated them, but I thought the world had a lot of cool ideas. When read aloud
to a receptive audience of children, I find they are much better. I am still distracted and bothered by her heavy use of adverbs, though, especially in the
dialogue. I read to my kids in voices and I've been gobsmacked a few times when I get to the end of a line I've read the way I think it should be and
get a 'Harry said, sadly' or 'Ron said, disappointedly' or some such.
The movies make more sense to me now, but I am now disagreeing with the casting choices for Ron (too pathetic), Ron's Dad (too homely), Snape (too mopey). Lupin, my favorite character in the movies, is exactly right, though. We're in the middle of the fourth book now.
Don't hate the playa, hate the GaMe!
|
||
