Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

…" The second is informative without any styling whatsoever. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just isn't literature. Narnia almost certainly is better written than Harry Potter. Don't take my word for it: read both. Narnia focuses on its language much more than Harry Potter. That's not saying Rowling writes without meaning: I wrote a minor dissertation about the first line in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone once, because I thought it was interesting and because I like picking things apart. Harry Potter has moments where it sounds beautiful, but those moments are few and far between, and Rowling does resort to clichés rather often. That doesn't make Harry Potter bad: I think that it defined a generation, my generation, and that the final 200 pages of the final book move me like very few things in writing do - that despite its l…