March 17th, 2024

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

What is there to say about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone that hasn't already been said? J.K. Rowling invented a new world (and, essentially, a new genre) when she released this book almost three decades ago; since then, the franchise has embedded itself into the cultural zeitgeist speedier than a Golden Snitch and with more fiery force than a Norwegian Ridgeback Dragon. Because I was already college-aged when the series hit the United States, I missed the first wave of Potter-mania; it wasn't until my older daughter was in elementary school that I finally took my first train to Hogwarts. But, from that initial encounter, I was hooked.

I recently finished rereading Sorcerer's Stone with a fresh set of eyes, and I have to say that the book holds up from a more objective, clinical, and discerning literary perspective. Rowling is a master of world-building, crafting whole (fictional) histories, cultures, and creatures as effortlessly as a "Wingardium Leviosa" spell. She is almost as adept at character development, providing story arcs that subvert expectations and mimic the complexities of the "real" (Muggle) world. From the red herring Snape/Quirrell switcheroo to the surprise first appearance of Voldemort, Rowling truly worked some (*ahem*) magic with her debut novel.

My only major complaint is with the pacing of the first section of Sorcerer's Stone. When I read aloud the opening chapter of the book for a "First-Chapter Friday" story time with my younger daughter's fourth-grade class, it took a full thirty minutes to make it all the way through. Needless to say, I was out of breath by the end - like a star Seeker after a tough Quidditch match. Likewise, the length of the initial exposition feels slower than molasses: it isn't until chapter five that we break out of the tedious Dursley domain and enter, wide-eyed, into Diagon Alley, hop through Platform 9 3/4, and (finally) arrive at Hogwarts. I only wish I had an "Accio Chapter Six" spell to breeze through the beginning and get to the good stuff.

Though Rowling has been in the news of late because of her "TERF" politics, she is more Snape than Voldemort: well-intentioned, but damaging, just the same. Can we separate the artist from the art? I don't have an answer to that rhetorical question. All I know is that Rowling created a once-in-a-generation mythology. However, it's a (wizarding) world that no longer belongs to her, but to her fans. And, in light (Lumos?) of Rowling's complicated politics, will those fans still hold a fondness in their hearts for the sweet nostalgia of Harry and his cohort? The answer is, like Snape later says at a key moment in the franchise, "Always."

View all my reviews