Let's Talk Harry Potter And the Sorceror's Stone

Please, no. I beg of you.

Awesome. I'd be glad to trade thoughts about the books. Alan Jacobs, a former professor of mine and one of the best Christian essayists writing today, has written several places about the series. From an essay that first appeared in 2000, here are a few of his thoughts (no spoilers):

"By now most readers in this country are aware of what has come to be called the Harry Potter phenomenon. It’s hard to be unaware. Any bookstore you might care to enter is strewn with giant stacks of the Harry Potter books—three of them now that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban has finally been released in the United States. This blessed event comes after some months during which the on–line bookstore Amazon.co.uk—Britain’s branch of the ever–expanding Amazon.com empire—devoted much of its energy to shipping copies across the Atlantic, creating in the process a miniature trade war, as lawyers on both sides of the pond tried to figure out which country a book is purchased in when it’s ordered from a British company but on a computer in America. Whatever the legal status of cyberspatial commerce, anyone visiting either Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk last summer could not but note that the best–selling books on both sites were the Harry Potter novels, which ranked a consistent one, two, and three.

"Many people are also familiar with the story behind the most talked–about children’s books in decades, perhaps ever: how Joanne Rowling, an out–of–work teacher and single mother living on the dole in Edinburgh, started scribbling a story in a local café as her small daughter dozed in a stroller; how an English publisher, Bloomsbury Books, took a chance on this unknown author; and how, almost wholly by word–of–mouth reports, the first novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, became a best–seller not just among children but also among adults, for whom Bloomsbury designed a more mature–looking cover so commuters on bus and tube would not have to be embarrassed as they eagerly followed Harry’s quest to discover what the enormous three–headed dog, Fluffy, was guarding in that off–limits corridor of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. International success, as indicated by those great piles of books at 40 percent discount and the dominance of Amazon’s best–seller lists, quickly followed.

"In the twenty–some–odd years that I have been pretty closely following trends in American publishing, no development in the industry has been nearly so inexplicable to me, nor has any development made me so happy. For I adore the Harry Potter books. I read the first one—under its silly American title, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (the American publisher evidently judged that no book with the word "philosopher" in the title could sell)—thinking that it might be something I could read to my son. Though I decided that he wasn’t quite old enough, at six, to follow the rather complicated plot, I myself was hooked, and in my impatience ordered each of the next two novels in the series from Amazon.co.uk, thus making my own personal contribution to the perplexity of international trade law. (The remaining books in the series—Rowling plans a total of seven—will be published simultaneously in the U.S. and the U.K., thus cutting the legal Gordian knot.)

"J. K. Rowling, as the books’ covers have it—the name rhymes with "bowling"—simply has that mysterious gift, so prized among storytellers and lovers of stories but so resistant to critical explication, of world–making. It is a gift that many Christian readers tend to associate with that familiar but rather amorphous group of English Christian writers, the Inklings—though the association is not quite proper, since only one of the Inklings, J. R. R. Tolkien, had this rare faculty, and few of the others even aspired to it. Tolkien, however, possessed the power in spades, and gave useful names to it as well: he spoke of the "secondary worlds" created by the writer, and of "mythopoeia" as the activity of such "sub–creation." The sine qua non of such mythopoeia, for Tolkien, is the making of a world that resembles ours but is not ours, a world that possesses internal logic and self–consistency to the same degree that ours does—but not the same logic: it must have its own rules, rules that are peculiar to it and that generate consequences also peculiar to it.

"It is important to understand that C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books, great though they may be, are not in this strict sense mythopoeic: Lewis does not want to create a self–consistent secondary world, but rather a world in which all the varieties of mythology meet and find their home. In Narnia there is no internal consistency whatever: thus Father Christmas can show up in the middle of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Bacchus and Silenus in the middle of Prince Caspian. It may well be that this mythographic promiscuity, so to speak, is key to the success of the Chronicles of Narnia, but it makes them very different books from Tolkien’s, and it is the reason why Tolkien hated the Narnia stories. They lacked the clearly demarcated wholeness which he considered the essential virtue of his own Middle Earth.

"Joanne Rowling has expressed her love for the Narnia books—one of the reasons there will be, God willing, seven Harry Potter books is that there are seven volumes of Narnia stories—but as a literary artist she bears a far greater resemblance to Tolkien. One of the great pleasures for the reader of her books is the wealth of details, from large to small, that mark the Magic world as different from ours (which in the books is called the Muggle world): the tall pointed hats the students wear in their classes, in which they study such topics as Potions, Transfiguration, Defense Against the Dark Arts, and even Care and Feeding of Magical Creatures; the spells that are always in Latin ("Expelliarmus!"); or the universal addiction to Quidditch, a game that shares some characteristics with basketball, cricket, and soccer but is played in the air, on broomsticks, and with four balls. Rowling’s attention to such matters is remarkable and charming, especially when the details are small: once, when he is visiting the home of a friend from a Magical family, Harry steps over a pack of Self–Shuffling Playing Cards. It’s an item that could have been left out without any loss to the narrative, but it offers an elegant little surprise—and another piece of furniture for this thoroughly imagined universe."

I was just not at all impressed by the first book. I haven't read any of the others as a result. I understand that they get better?

I did see the first few movies and enjoyed them.

I don't know if it was a function of expecting more thanks to the hype or not.

I will say that you're right, the world she developed is pretty cool and if I were a teen when I read it I suspect I may have connected more.

One thing I loved about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was the wonder of it all. One day, Harry is living a downtrodden existence with his aunt and uncle, the next he's on the train to Hogwarts. His life doesn't necessarily get easier (in fact in some ways it gets harder) but it's the life Harry was meant for. In the Muggle world, Harry is a complete outsider. The wizarding world is where he belongs. I think Rowling understood the feeling of longing for a place to belong because it comes through so well in the stories.

I'm glad you're enjoying the books -- I've been re-reading them via audiobook lately and being reminded of all the things I love about them (and seeing some of how the stories fit together better). The audio versions were read by a British actor named Jim Dale and they're absolutely wonderful. They're so much fun to listen to.

I haven't talked about these books either, being late to the party myself. I've read the first five and enjoyed them all. I liked this one for it's classical elements. The final challenges were formally staged with straight-forward contests of wit and skill. The final confrontation was a bit like something from the Greek myths. The writing isn't high and lofty; it's just good.

I agree with Damon. Can't recall for sure about McGonagall, but I thought she stayed behind. If not, who knows what kind of powerful protective spell Dumbledore could have put around Harry so that only the Dursleys could pick up his basket.

But still I agree, there is definitely a forlorn sense of abandonment around Harry as he is left on the doorstep.

I loved the scene with Vernon Dursley vainly trying to prevent/avoid the delivery of the letters from Hogwarts. "Daddy's gone mad, hasn't he?" And the first appearance of Hagrid. Dudley's tail. All the little details that populate the magical world and make it believable (of COURSE there would be something like that in such a world!).

I love those books and I can't wait to read them to and with my kids when they're old enough to appreciate them. I plan to read the Narnia books and The Hobbit and LOTR to them, too.

I would love to discuss, but my problem is that at this point they all run together as one long story. I'm not sure I'd remember specific bits of any of the books anymore.

Maybe I should re-read them...

Ally, I understand your sentiment. I think that that scene exists as it does to set a certain tone ... and, yes, it is puzzling that Dumbledore allowed Harry to live such a horrid existence, when he really should have been adopted, and (let's be honest) any number of wizard families would have taken him in. (Not naming the most natural name since Philip only wants to talk about book 1.) That's sort of answered later on, though.

Overall, I think that the book set a wonderful tone. There's enough non-plot-driving stuff that the world is colorful and feels real, without cluttering up the narrative and making it drag. Still, though, it does feel like I'm reading about a kid who's actually in school.

He just happens to be in a school where he learns to fly a broom.

I agree, the humor is brilliant. The "a few words" speech is one that my wife and I quote at each other quite frequently, really.

Oh, Scott! Go read the books. The movies have NOTHING on the books. They're good for what they are, but they're so not the real thing.

I am, to put it mildly, a Harry Potter fan. Not to the extent that my roommate was - but I do own two complete sets of the books (British and American), and I've read them all. A lot. :)

The article Karl quoted alluded to something I'd heard - that J.K. Rowling is a C.S. Lewis fan. That the Harry Potter books are modeled after the Chronicles, in that there would be 7. But what if it's more than that? What if the Harry Potter books are allegory?

I don't think it holds true flawlessly. I think the Harry Potter books are, in part, just good story. "just." they're AMAZING. she's obviously very well-researched on mythology, and kids. her magical world is fantastic. but what if there's more to it?

what if Hogwarts itself is an allegorical sketch of the church?

all i'm going to say is pay attention to Peeves and the Sorting Hat. there may be more to these stories than J.K will admit to right now. :) i'll be honest and say i haven't followed too much of the hype so i have no idea what she's said or not said - this is just my own little theory.

and thanks, Philip, for starting the conversation. it's a perfect excuse to re-read them. :)

So what was all the hoopla back in the day about her putting actual spells in the books and encouraging children to explore witchcraft at an early age?

I never doubted the stories themselves were well written and entertaining. I thought all the discussion was about her personal comments and the beliefs she publicly espoused that was the issue to begin with.

So I guess that was the kind of discussion I was expecting here, not just rave reviews of a fabulous storyteller.

I haven't read them yet, but I plan to at some point. I tried to ignore most of the hyper-sensitive criticism, but some of it is still rolling around waiting to know what's true and what's not, apparently.

I love me some Harry Potter. And I don't put much stock in the Christians that talk about how there are real spells and witchcraft. They're the same ones that say Stephen King is channelling demons when he writes. Poppycock.

LOL @ #12.

I am attempting to restrain myself from posting any spoilers. :) It's been a while since I've read Sorcerer's Stone, and have had plenty of other information shoved into my head since then, so I might have to go back and read it soon.