Some thoughts on The Sorcerer's Stone
A few weeks ago I finally finished "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" by J.K. Rowling, much to my sister's delight. Having only skimmed the book when it first came to the states, I couldn't remember much of what had happened when the I went to see "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the theater. I really enjoyed that movie and the sequels I've seen so far (I haven't had the opportunity to see "The Goblet of Fire" yet!), but my sister kept insisting that I read the book. "You have to read the book," she said. "If nothing else, I'll have someone to talk to about it." So I did.
It was much better than when I'd skimmed through it the first time. There's something to be said for actually reading a book and not simply skipping through the pages to get a sense of it. *g* I was expecting to find in the book a lot of extra material that couldn't be in the movie; there's always more information in the book form of a story. I noticed two things (the most). First, I think they did a great job making the book into a movie. Most of the parts that were changed didn't differ greatly from the book; they were more of a summary of what was going on. That said, I have to mention the second thing I noticed. There was a fundamental change in the frequency that one character appeared in the movie as compared to the book. I was really surprised that Neville Longbottom had more of a role in the original story than we were led to believe in the movie. He was present when the students performed their detention in the woods with Hagrid, not Ron. My sister tells me that Neville plays a growing role of importance in the books that follow. I find this very interesting. Just what is the significance of Neville Longbottom? There must be a reason for it. Hm.
Soon I'll be adding the next book to my To-Read list.