Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1, Large Print)

The greatist fictional series to date. That is my opinion. But I think most will agree with me. This book introduces to the the "house-hold name" Harry Potter. It kept me on the edge of my seat when I read it for the first time years ago, and it still does today. I highly suggest reading the series.

There is little more I can add to the coverage and discussion around Rowling's first book of the "Harry Potter" series, nor do I think I could be terribly objective because they mean so much to me personally. However, I did receive the 10th Anniversary Edition as a gift and wanted to mention a few things. First, this edition is bound in red cloth with embossed stars (very fun to carry if you, like me, do not want to damage the dust jacket and remove it while reading). Second, this book includes a full-color illustration of Hagrid approaching Hogwarts in the boats for first years. Finally, we get an early drawing of Professor Snape done by Rowling herself. Nothing else about this edition is dramatically different, except for the new drawing and dust jacket. The average reader will not need to go out and buy a copy of this edition, but if you are a Harry Potter enthusiast, you may want a copy to sit alongside your series.

In today's economy, customers buying books need to know exactly what they're buying. In this case, what your thirty bucks buys is -- apart from the previously published text (the novel itself) and the previously published art (interior art) -- is, essentially, a new cover by longtime Harry Potter cover artist Mary GrandPre, and a black-and-white illustration by Rowling (quite the cartoonist!), which comprises the "bonus" material Scholastic has been touting but keeping under wraps.

The wraps are off and, while the illustration is nice, Scholastic would be better off issuing either an illustration edition with more art (which, by the way, exists), or taking the momentous occasion of the 10th anniversary to celebrate it in a significant fashion: Rowling, why wasn't there an original interview in which you looked back at the ten years of Harry Potter in the media? Why wasn't there a long essay by a respected literary critic looking at the Harry Potter phenomenon? Why wasn't there MORE text?

If this was simply a reprint edition, the omission of new text would be understandable. But when you're celebrating ten years of Harry Potter in print, how, exactly, does a new cover, a previously published (to the best of my knowledge) illustration for the colored endpapers, and a black-and-white illustration by Rowling "celebrate" the book's publication?

As there is no historical retrospective here, I'd have to say that Scholastic missed the boat: This edition could have been so much more, but it suffers (ironically) from a failure of imagination.

I have rated it five stars because the first novel is a literary classic in the children's field. The publisher, however, needs to think about how to ADD VALUE to the existing edition when touting its "anniversary" status, esp. if they intend on reissuing matching volumes in the future. Otherwise, it comes off as being just another edition to get the fans' hard-earned money, instead of offering something new, different, and significantly improved.

I watched the SECOND movie first, the Chamber of Secrets. That was my first introduction. Over the years i then watched movie #3, #4 and #5. Recently, i went back and watched #5 again, The Order of the Phoenix.

And then i just felt an urge to actually read the books before the next movie came out (and the Half Blood Prince previews were currently out) so i borrowed Half Blood Prince and really enjoyed it. Having never read the other books did not deter me from understanding the plot at all, and actually the movies helped me to GREATLY visualize characters i would have otherwise been at a loss to understand.

So...i am finally reading The Sorcerers Stone, and then i'll read through them all eventually.

Yes, the series is great. And Hollywood has done a great job of adapting them too. I look forward to the final 3 films.

This first of the Harry Potter series is easily the best. It introduces all the characters with which we will become familiar through succeeding years, and provides a plot that will delight children while fascinating adult readers like myself who grew up on fantasy.

One problem, not of the author's making. What on earth is a sorcerer's stone? The original title of this book, and the title used in most markets, refers to a philosopher's stone. Most educated readers will recognise this reference to an age-old quest for longer life, but the reference has gone by the time the American reader reaches the bookshelf. Do American publishers really think they have to talk down to their audience? Or did some nitwit in the publishing industry really have no clue? Either way, this is a monumental stuff-up which treats the American reader as an uneducated dummy rather than going with the author's original intent.

Publishers, give your readers a little more credit. The relatively low score I give this book is a result of your error rather than the author's.