Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[honey]

LOL ok, the discussion can be official now! And The sorcers stone is this months book, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that people will want to talk about all the HP books, so this thread is not limited to the first book alone.

I just got my book today so I'll try to get a little reading done here and join in the discussion as soon as I can!   Ok, ladies, (and Ash!  ) DISCUSS AWAY!

[Carter-Orange]

I've read it, but it was a couple of years ago so will re-read it so I can remember everything.

[Carter-Orange]

I wonder why the book is called The Philosopher's Stone over here?

[julilly]

I wonder why the book is called The Philosopher's Stone over here?

Mine is also called the Philosopher's Stone.

From what I recall they changed the name because Scholastic didn't think American children would be interested in reading anything they would assume was about philosophy; that Americans would find it incomprehensib le, and misleading.

... which kind says to me the publisher assumed all children in the US and dumb and ignorant lol I'm not saying they say... Scholastic did!

[Kentuckychickrk]

I'm on the "Goblet of Fire" in my quest to reread them all before the movie now.  I reread S.S about three weeks ago and yeah... the first two books are definitely more along the lines of children's books.  The plot definitely develops a lot after that - so if those who are just now getting started aren't thrilled, give the third and fourth books a try before giving up.

As for the philosopher/sorcerer thing... the Philosopher's Stone makes more sense because it's an actual legendary thing... as was Nicholas Flamel.  But ya know, us Americans are just too dumb to figure any of that out on our own.

[RokofAges75]

They thought the word "philosopher" was misleading, and "sorcerer" sounded better, gave it a more magical feel.  I'm not a big fan of the Americanizatio n, although I do think Sorcerer's Stone has a better ring as a title.  It's the alliteration LOL.

I know the text of the first [few?] books was "Americanized" a bit too, replacing some British slang that they thought American children wouldn't understand with more American terms.  Not having read any of the UK versions, except the sixth, I'm not sure when they stopped doing that, but the last few books aren't edited that way, from what I know.  The 6th book came out while I was in Scotland, so I have the UK edition of that, along with the American version, so that's the only one I've read both editions of, and I don't remember noticing any differences in the actual text.  There are a lot of Britishy terms that I noticed reading the UK version that are also in the US version, so I'm about positive it wasn't Americanized in that way.  I was startled to discover that the UK edition only uses one apostrophe for quotation marks... ' instead of ".  That was the biggest difference to me LOL.

[RokofAges75]

LOL ok, the discussion can be official now! And The sorcers stone is this months book, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that people will want to talk about all the HP books, so this thread is not limited to the first book alone.

I would say just maybe give a spoiler warning for in-depth discussion of the later books, particularly the sixth and seventh, since the movies aren't out, for those who are just reading the series for the first time.  For those who have read it, we don't want to give away the whole ending before they get there!

[RokofAges75]

I've been reading a chapter a night before bed since Tuesday, and I'm greatly enjoying reading it again.  I haven't read this one since before Deathly Hallows came out, so it's fun to go back to the very beginning.  Although it definitely is more of a children's book than the later ones, I think that's what I like about it... it brings out the kid in everyone who enjoys it and can find the magic in it.  I read it for the first time when I was like 16-17, so not really a "child" anymore, and yet it made me feel like a kid again then and still sort of does.  Who wouldn't want to suddenly find out they're magic and be whisked away from their miserable life and everyone who's ever mistreated them to a magical place where they're not only accepted, but even famous and popular!

Like Rose said in the other thread, it's a story of self-discovery, which is something we all can relate to... really, maybe adults more so than kids, because we've all been through or are still going through that young adult phase of self-discovery that comes as you transition from school to the real world.

[RokofAges75]

Anyway, I'm still on the Dursley part now, and I have to say... the cynical realist and teacher in me has always been troubled by the fact that poor Harry has grown up in a home where he is mistreated, neglected, and unloved, without whatever the UK's version of DCFS is getting involved, and somehow still turns out to be a kind, intelligent boy with morals and a sense of humor, who knows how to be a friend and is capable of loving.  The mistreated orphan is such a classic staple of these kinds of books, and it totally works; we're immediately drawn to Harry because we sympathize with him, and it wouldn't work if he wasn't a good, likeable character.  But unfortunately, in the real world, a kid who had grown up in the same situation would have so many issues by the time he was eleven, which would probably just get worse as he continued through adolescence.  Harry turns out to be amazingly well-adjusted, given his upbringing.

[Chaos]

That bothered me, too, Julie. I think that's why I had trouble getting into the books the first few times I tried. I mean it's possible, of course, for an abused, neglected child to turn out like Harry, but usually it's because they did have at least some positive relationships. I mean without going into my own personal demons much, I had a lot of childhood issues and should probably be even more f'ed up than I am, but I had my older sisters and we all kind of helped negate all the bad things that went on. Plus, of course, I have a lot of positive childhood memories that also help balance out the bad things. Harry apparently doesn't have any of that and yet still inately knows how to be a good friend. He does have some insecurities, but quite honestly, with his past, I'd kind of think he'd battle those a lot more than he does.

That said, the mistreated orphan does work beautifully for automatically drawing a person in to a character. It works, but sometimes I feel it's almost a 'cheat' of sorts to MAKE you like a character. (This actually is a topic I've thought of bringing up in the debate threads, and probably should some time, but...erm...ye ah. lol.) 

Do you think you'd like Harry as a character as much if he'd been raised by a family like the Weasleys? Does his having a rotten childhood bring that much to his character do you think? (Of course he'd still have lost his biological parents, so that whole part of the tragedy would still be intact...)

[Rose]

I have to admit Chaos, I did kinda have to trudge through till Hagrid came in, in Sorcerer's Stone (can't believe the title is the Americanized version, how funny lol. But it catches attention), and that's because of the fact Harry came out far too well adjusted for such an abused child. By all rights he should be a psychological mess by the time he arrived at Hogwarts. I mean honestly, there should be more trust issues, he probably would use people in his fear of trust. He'd be more of an attention seeker (even famous lol). He's way too well adjusted.

At the same time, I doubt the story would work well otherwise. A normal kid discovering he's a wizard? okay but a bit lame. An abused child, finding out he's really something special? That's more attractive. That's why so many people love the story of Cinderella.

[Chaos]

Yeah, I do get the Cinderella thing, and it's not so much that they've made him an abused character; that really does work for the story. It just still kind of bothers me that it's SO one-sidedly a bad childhood (abusive/neglectful family, no friends, etc, NOTHING happy to help balance it out at least a little bit to explain why he's inately a good, compassionate being)  that it just makes the character ring really false to me during the first book (so far). Given, it's a story for younger kids, so I can understand completely why it doesn't really show his journey from being a f'ed up kid to learning how to really be a friend, etc. To me, that could have been a really interesting part of the journey. But again I can see why she didn't tell that story.

Now mind you I love the HP books (once I finally did get into them), this is just my 'if there's one thing that bothered me' sort of ranting. lol. It did bother me, but not enough to make me dislike the series (and I think they kind of do delve a bit more into his psyche in the later books, so it makes more sense then why she had him have such a negative childhood, but...it stll rings false to me (which in fantasy books isn't necessarily a bad thing...lol).

[RokofAges75]

I think the whole orphan/terrible family situation worked well for the story because Harry's life with the Dursleys is the complete opposite of his life in the wizarding world and at Hogwarts, and the point of at least the first book was that he finally found a place where he fit in and made friends and found happiness.  The two situations are contrasted nicely, but I agree that Harry from an emotional standpoint isn't portrayed as realistically as he could.  But given that it's a children's book, like Chaos said, that is kind of understandable too.

The books actually do show some good effects on Harry's personality that his background gave him.  Because he WASN'T raised the same way Dudley was, he is the opposite of Dudley - grateful and humble instead of spoiled and entitled, selfless instead of selfish, etc.  Also, I think because he never had any friends or close family growing up, he latches on to the friendships and bonds he does make in the wizarding world, and would do anything for those people.  And that love he has for his friends and people he views as family is so important to the series as a whole.  And while it's true that in real life, he would probably have such attachment and trust issues that he would have a lot more trouble forming those close bonds, it works for the story.


Edit:  Also, at the risk of revealing too much (so... spoiler warning?), when you learn more about Voldemort's back story in the later books, especially book 6, and see the similarities between his childhood and Harry's, I think you can see why JKR chose to make Harry so unusually well-adjusted.  Harry's upbringing made him a stronger, better person in the end.  Because he was so neglected as a child, he's never comfortable being in the spotlight in the wizarding world and doesn't relish being "The Boy Who Lived" or "The Chosen One."  Whereas Voldemort takes the realization that he is a wizard and runs with it, feeling that he IS special and is destined for more.  His own abandonment issues manifest not only in his evilness, but in the fact that although he has a whole horde of faithful followers, he has no attachments himself and has no qualms about killing or sacrificing his own allies.  He is the anti-Harry.  So I think maybe that's also why JKR wrote Harry as a pretty normal, modest, loving person after all, because she wanted to juxtapose him with Voldy's arrogance, autonomy, and hate.  They are two extremes that make both characters larger than life, but that's the fun of a fantasy story.  They follow the classic archetypes of the hero and the villain so well.

[Kentuckychickrk]

I also think that as you read on and read the later stories you'll realize that Harry actually has quite a lot of issues    That he's not at all the "well adjusted" child that he appears to be in the first book.  He has to work through and deal with a lot as he gets older.

And I think we also have to realize that JK Rowling never exactly set Harry up as a horribly abused and neglected child.  Harry had a crappy childhood, yes.  But she made it very clear that he was fed and had a roof over his head and was sent to school (where he clearly did get some sort of edumacation and though it was never pointed out - likely had some friends).  Don't get me wrong, the Dursleys sucked, but I've seen in my job, children come from far worse and turn out far better...

[RokofAges75]

True, I think the fifth book is the best example of these issues coming out... he's such an angry teenager in that one LOL.  And he does have a lot of other issues that just come from his personality and the crap he gets put through in the wizarding world.

And also true, there are a lot worse cases in real life.  But to be emotionally abused, ignored, and unloved, even while being fed and sheltered, is still pretty traumatic.  But you're right; some kids do come through it and turn out alright.