GoSale.com :: Reviews by A16QODENBJVUI1

Reviews Written By: A16QODENBJVUI1

provided by Amazon.com


	Up (4 Disc Combo Pack with Digital Copy and DVD) [Blu-ray]
	"Another masterpiece from Pixar"	2009-11-22
There is probably no name I trust more today in film and television than Pixar (with the exception of Mutant Enemy). Both the quality of their productions and the excellence of their scripts stand out among animated films. I particularly loved this one because it shatters all previous templates for what a film is supposed to be about. The main protagonist is a 78-year-old man who bears a resemblance to to Spencer Tracy and his main traveling companion is a young, rotund Asian boy scout. Along the way they acquire a delightfully absurd and gigantic bird and a talking dog (while I saw this film I was reading Clifford D. Simak's CITY, which features several talking dogs, so for a while talking dogs were a motif in my cultural life). All of this while attempting to relocate a house carried by thousands of helium-filled balloons to a mythical spot in South America called Paradise Falls. And the entire affair was prefaced by a story within the story, of the story of Carl and Ellie's long life together. I've yet to see a Pixar movie that wasn't a complete delight. And as for the appropriateness for small children, I would not hesitate to show it to one. I think a child will find it entertaining, moving, and inspiring. The messages in the film are good, positive ones and I not only think that children can see this film without harm, but should be encouraged to do so.
	Star Trek (Three-Disc +Digital Copy) [Blu-ray]
	"Defied my already considerable expectations"	2009-11-19
There are a number of ways to praise this film. For instance, while I missed it in the theater I had heard nothing but great things about it and was awaiting the film on Blu-ray with great expectations. Far too often when you look forward to a movie with this kind of enthusiasm you end up getting disappointed. And I have to say that I was very disappointed with the beginning of the film. The whole-birth-of-Kirk-at-the-height-of-a-great-battle thing left me laughing and unhappy. It was, however, the only part of the movie that I disliked. So it is high praise to say that I loved this movie despite expecting to love it. Here is another way to praise it. Almost all movies that are remakes try to work in former stars in cameos of one sort or another. While it is usually nice to see them, their appearances are almost always throwaways. The use of Leonard Nimoy in this film is hand's down the best I've ever seen of an original cast member in a remake. Without going into details -- I intend this to be a spoiler free review -- Nimoy's role is not a cameo. He in fact has a pretty important role. It was simply wonderful that it wasn't a tacked on appearance or one that was irrelevant to the main course of the film. Another way to praise it is that I actually preferred it to the original. That may be heresy, but while I always liked the original series, I was never passionately in love with it. Like Orson Scott Card (with whom I almost always agree with in assessing SF TV and movies even while disagreeing passionately with him on politics), I never felt that the original series was actually very good SF. I honestly believe that I prefer everyone of the new ST characters to their original counterparts, with the exception of Spock. Mind you, I don't prefer the new versions hugely, with one exception, but I still thoroughly enjoyed all of them. The one huge exception is Chris Pine as Kirk. For me the original series was seriously crippled by William Shatner and if asked to compile a list of the worst actors that I've ever seen on TV, he would top the list. I'd have to think about who would be #2. Chris Pine was, for me, everything that Shatner was not. He was simultaneously brash and funny, heroic and self-effacing. And his acting decisions were never, well, weird. If you watch the original series and put yourself in Shatner's shoes, some of -- well, make that huge numbers of -- his decisions are utterly perverse. No once watching Pine, however, did I wonder about his decisions. He brought charisma to a role that for me Shatner brought only strangeness. Clearly J. J. Abrams has to receive major kudos for the success of the film. Working with a script by his fellow FRINGE executive producers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, he produced a movie that put to shame most other films based on prior TV series. He managed to reintroduce all of the familiar characters, but in ways that not only did not slow down the story but actually advanced the narrative. I've had enormous respect for J. J. Abrams over the years. I have a theory that he describes a crucial line between intelligence and popular appeal on TV. Below the line and you get increasingly less intelligent TV producers. Above the line and you get smart but niche television. Not that many people are above the line, but the ones who do produce absolutely brilliant TV series that have serious trouble attracting viewers. Joss Whedon, Ronald D. Moore, Bryan Fuller, and Matthew Weiner are among this smaller group of producers. Their work is passionately loved by TV critics, college students and professors, other TV writers and producers, and academic writers, but their shows are not watched by large numbers of viewers. Still, it isn't like Abrams makes TV for dummies, and I've loved many aspects of his TV series. After Joss Whedon, Abrams may have done more for heroic females on TV than anyone else. And while at his best he may not cause your jaw to drop down to your ankles like Whedon or Ronald Moore can, he still can be surprising and exciting. STAR TREK is very close to Abrams best work and I very much hope that we will see a follow up to this first film sooner rather than later. One of the things that I do enjoy about a J. J. Abrams production is that he love to bring back people he has worked with before. Not just Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, but Rachel Nichols, who was superb in the final season of ALIAS (and who had a great love scene with Kirk in this one) and Amanda Foreman, who was in both FELICITY and ALIAS. And of course, Greg Grunberg manages to find his way into all of Abrams's productions sooner or later (though not yet in FRINGE, as far as I know). Here he only manages to provide the voice of Kirk's step-father, but it is the kind of cameo that works well.
	Sourcery
	"One of my favorite Discworld books"	2009-11-19
One of the great things about the Discworld novels at this point in the series (SOURCERY is the fifth book) is that the increasingly rich group of supporting characters that populate Terry Pratchett's insane universe make good stories even better. Rincewind is the main character in three of the first five novels (as well as making a brief appearance in MORT). He would not continue to be the main character in the Discworld novels, but he definitely helped hold up the series early on. The conceit of having a wizard who has virtually no magical abilities is a delicious one, as is his status as a survivor's survivor. With other returning characters like Death, the librarian (Oook), and the luggage made of sapient pearwood, along with the daughter of and the disciple of a previous character, Cohen the Barbarian, a good time is had by all, especially the reader. Honestly does anyone read Terry Pratchett for the story? I don't, at least. I read him for his absolutely nutty collection of characters, his delightfully weird inversion of ideas and concepts, and his wonderful word play. I rarely laugh when I read Pratchett. He isn't that kind of comic writer. I find myself smiling a lot. In fact, nearly the whole time that I read him. In short, he makes me happy. This has been an interesting undertaking. I've read a bunch of novels in the series over the years, but not in order and omitting entire groups of books. For instance, I've not really read much in the wizards and the Unseen University. I've read all of the books dealing with the Watch along with a few other random odds and ends. All of the first five books are new for me. In fact, the first novel that I will reread will be GUARDS! GUARDS after a couple of more books. But I have enjoyed these first five books immensely and I already know that i love the ones to come. My only regret is that Pratchett's physical condition might prevent him from writing many more books in the series. We can hope for a miracle treatment that will enable him to maintain his creative faculties for the longest possible time. Nothing would be better than for him to continue writing books as long as he would like.
	The Philip K. Dick Collection
	"A gorgeous collection of Philip K. Dick's greatest novels"	2009-11-18
SF is today gaining more and more respectability among serious readers and academic literary critics. Although there are a handful of stories from the pulp era of the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties, there were few stories that would stand up to any kind of literary analysis and virtually no novels that would. The so-called Big Three of the forties and fifties - Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke - shock serious readers today coming to them for the first time. They were not only not good writers by mainstream criteria, they were actively bad writers. This is not to say that there weren't some good ideas here and there (Asimov's Foundation series or Clarke's CHILDHOOD'S END or Rama novels are often interesting), but that the prose is almost always atrocious, the characters stock and uninteresting, and the stories and novels completely lacking in literary excellence. This was intentional. Let me repeat that: the books and stories were intentionally strove to not be good literature. Why? Because many key figures in the early days of SF, like the enormously influential editor John W. Campbell Jr., explicitly stated that SF was not going to be about character and well-honed prose; it was supposed to be about "neat ideas." The goal was to explore scientific ideas through their depiction of plausible scenarios of the future. Campbell felt that good writing would actually detract from exploring these ideas. This conception of SF has not completely disappeared among fans, though the vast majority of today's writers strive to achieve a degree of excellence unheard of in the days of the pulps. So what changed? Initially not much. But during the late fifties and then especially in the sixties and seventies, not in the least because of the ascendance of several acclaimed SF writers, many of them women, more and more people became excited about more sophisticated stories. Writers like Ursula K. LeGuin, Octavia Butler, Samuel R. Delaney, and J. G. Ballard wrote stories more brilliant than anything that those in the forties and fifties could dream of, smart and innovative stories that features richly delineated characters and marvelously complex moral situations. But we didn't just leap from Asimov and Heinlein to LeGuin and Delaney. The crucial figure in the growth of SF into a genre that could be taken seriously by more demanding readers was without question Philip K. Dick. Although Stanislaw Lem (who was a passionate critic of Anglo-American SF but also a huge fan of Dick) was writing equally brilliant and even more finely written books and story behind the Iron Curtain), it was Dick that awoke most people to the ability of SF to be more than what had been seen in the pulps. For one thing, Dick abjured the whole "neat idea" approach to SF. He had plenty of great ideas, maybe the best ideas ever seen in SF either before or after, but his ideas were not scientific; they where, instead, metaphysical, explorations of reality and personhood. Dick moved SF from the "hard SF" and space opera that had dominated the field the previous few decades to philosophical reflection about how we create and maintain our ideas of reality. Philip K. Dick's preeminence among SF writers has been acknowledged in many ways. He has perhaps been written about more than any other SF writer. One of SF's most prestigious awards has been given his name. Several of the most memorable SF films of recent years - BLADE RUNNER, TOTAL RECALL, and MINORITY REPORT (along with some less successful efforts) were based on works. And now he has been honored by this collection of the three Library of America volumes, which jointly assemble most, though not all, of Dick's most important novels. This is not a silly gesture on the part of LOA. They have undertaken to produce quality editions of America's greatest writers and Dick certainly qualifies based on his influence and impact. The volumes are available separately, but I personally think it is worth getting them all at once, which means you get this spiffy slipcase. I should point out that it is actually cheaper buying Dick's novels in these incredibly attractive volumes than buying them in the individual Vintage paperbacks. With the additional front and back matter in each book, this really is a great way to accumulate Dick's best books. This is, in my opinion, an outstanding selection of books. Between the three books you get: THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE THE THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? UBIK MARTIAN TIME-SLIP DR. BLOODMONEY, OR HOW WE GOT ALONG AFTER THE BOMB NOW WAIT FOR LAST YEAR FLOW MY TEARS, THE POLICEMAN SAID A SCANNER DARKLY A MAZE OF DEATH VALIS THE DIVINE INVASION THE TRANSMIGRATION OF TIMOTHY ARCHER I can't quibble with the inclusion of any of those, although a few of my favorites are missing, like WE CAN BUILD YOU, CLANS OF THE ALPHANE MOON, and TIME OUT OF JOINT. To really get a collection right, however, they really should have had a fourth volume with a selection of stories. As good as Dick was as a novelist, he was arguably even better as a short story writer, since most of his genius came with the general idea rather than the execution, which could sometimes be somewhat sloppy (due to the time constraints of meeting deadlines or sometimes just because he couldn't be bothered with rewriting, which was not his strong suit). Without a volume of stories, Library of America has not truly recognized Dick. Perhaps they will correct this at some point in the future. Dick was a brilliant writer but not a perfect one. As you read his books, you are frequently astonished at his amazing capacities for invention. The more you read of him, the more you gain a sense of the fecundity of his imagination. He continually keeps the reader on his or her heels by continuously inverting situations, placing wheels within wheels, and shifting what appears to be reality. But the books and stories - every single one of them - are flawed in so many ways. Like Heinlein and Asimov, he was not particularly strong with character, though he was better than them. His prose is not terribly compelling, but it can be effective. But the bigger problem is that there are rough spots all over the place and there are many structural difficulties. The last third of a novel might feel like it belongs to a different one. And all of them could have used a rewrite or two. A lot of this was the result of Dick's need to meet a deadline (he was getting paid by the word, so rewriting didn't make a whole lot of sense). Some of it was his mental or physical condition - Dick engaged in massive drug use for much of his adult life, some of it for enlightenment, some of it for recreation, some of it (mainly speed) to enable him to work for days in succession without sleep (Dick was an astonishingly fast typist, able to type over 130 words a minute, but able to compose at 80 to 100 words a minute). His reputation as a drug user was so well known that Harlan Ellison requested that he write his contribution to the landmark SF anthology DANGEROUS VISIONS while high. In addition t the drug use, or perhaps as a result of it, Dick struggled with mental illnesses of one sort or another. For instance, he suffered from severe paranoia and had grand delusions about Stanislaw Lem's designs upon his life (though politically liberal, Dick was nonetheless anticommunist). Additionally, he struggled with financial and health problems. In short, he did not always have the best circumstances for writing. It is almost impossible to overstate the influence of Philip K. Dick not only SF but on our culture at large. The kinds of stories he pioneered can be found almost everywhere. Among other achievements, he invented the alternative reality story, in THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE creating an alternative history that would influence hundreds of imaginative reworkings of history (Harry Turtledove has made a career out of it). Countless stories and movies and novels and TV shows have borrowed elements or contain plots that remind one of Philip K. Dick. To cite only one possible example, in Season Six of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER there is an episode where Buffy fights a demon that causes her to hallucinate that she is actually in a mental institution, and has been for years. She learns that she is suffering from a serious mental illness in which she fantasizes that she is a vampire slayer, her generation's "Chosen One." The situation is one precisely like that in Dick, where either reality might be true. Buffy might be the Slayer or she might be a mentally ill person for whom being the Slayer is a disease. Writers from the show have acknowledged it as their "Philip K. Dick episode." Thanks in large part to Dick, SF is today not merely the preoccupation of teens and middle-aged men who live with their mothers. People who read Thomas Mann and Cormac McCarthy and James Joyce and Thomas Pynchon also read Philip K. Dick. Major academicians like Fredric Jameson write extensively about Dick and his writings have become a part of the mainstream Canon. I cannot recommend these volumes strongly enough either to longtime fans or to newcomers who want to find out just who this guy is. Since his death in 1982 Philip K. Dick's critical reputation has continued to grow. Thanks in part to publications like this one, I believe it will continue to grow for some time in the future.
	Ghostbusters
	"The original has held up well over time"	2009-11-14
My daughter and I just did a GHOST BUSTERS double bill in honor of her upcoming move to New York, where she will be working at Columbia University, which is where Bill Murray and his paranomal colleague are studying at the beginning of the first film. We both really enjoyed the original and felt that it had more than held up over time, but we we were tremendously disappointed with the sequel. This is a joint review of both films. We watched the original film on Blu-ray and the second one on regular DVD. I won't say much more about the format except to say that the quality of the Blu-ray was somewhat disappointing. In fact, the quality of the DVD was very nearly as good as the Blu-ray. Rewatching the first film, it was fascinating to see what a simple story it told, and how short it was. There really is very little to the film apart from the simple story and a string of scenes the become a framework for a series of jokes. The one thing that surprised me was that I don't find Bill Murray's jokes, many of which feel ad libbed, as funny as I did when I saw it when it first came out. This is balanced by Harold Ramis and Dan Ackroyd being funnier than I remembered. The special effects all look pretty good by today's standards, except for Slimer, who didn't much appeal to me when the film came out and still doesn't. But the highpoint of the movie, then as now, is the Stay-Puft marshmallow man, which is definitely one of the greatest movie monsters ever. I saw the sequel when it came out, but over the years found it odd that I couldn't remember anything about it. I remembered that Sigourney Weaver's character had a baby, but that was the extent of it. Rewatching the film it is easy to see why I couldn't remember anything about it: it is simply not a very memorable film. The pace and the rhythm are erratic and many of the jokes are simply unfunny. The plot isn't very interesting and seems pretty formulaic, the formula being the first movie. It was, in fact, almost a remake of the original with some names changed and situations altered. Both my daughter and I were very unhappy with it and did not think it a very worthy sequel to the first film. The original 1984 GHOSTBUSTERS still plays like a film that was the product of some imaginations in the grip of a real vision, while the sequel feels like a film made to cash in on the success of the former. It isn't like they weren't trying, they simply weren't inspired. GHOSTBUSTERS 2 just is not a worthy sequel of one of the more memorable light comedies of the eighties. Speaking for the two of us, we definitely enjoyed the first movie, but wish we had passed on the second one. I just hope that I remember the latter as poorly as I did the first time.
	Ghostbusters [Blu-ray]
	"The original has held up well over time"	2009-11-14
My daughter and I just did a GHOST BUSTERS double bill in honor of her upcoming move to New York, where she will be working at Columbia University, which is where Bill Murray and his paranomal colleague are studying at the beginning of the first film. We both really enjoyed the original and felt that it had more than held up over time, but we we were tremendously disappointed with the sequel. This is a joint review of both films. We watched the original film on Blu-ray and the second one on regular DVD. I won't say much more about the format except to say that the quality of the Blu-ray was somewhat disappointing. In fact, the quality of the DVD was very nearly as good as the Blu-ray. Rewatching the first film, it was fascinating to see what a simple story it told, and how short it was. There really is very little to the film apart from the simple story and a string of scenes the become a framework for a series of jokes. The one thing that surprised me was that I don't find Bill Murray's jokes, many of which feel ad libbed, as funny as I did when I saw it when it first came out. This is balanced by Harold Ramis and Dan Ackroyd being funnier than I remembered. The special effects all look pretty good by today's standards, except for Slimer, who didn't much appeal to me when the film came out and still doesn't. But the highpoint of the movie, then as now, is the Stay-Puft marshmallow man, which is definitely one of the greatest movie monsters ever. I saw the sequel when it came out, but over the years found it odd that I couldn't remember anything about it. I remembered that Sigourney Weaver's character had a baby, but that was the extent of it. Rewatching the film it is easy to see why I couldn't remember anything about it: it is simply not a very memorable film. The pace and the rhythm are erratic and many of the jokes are simply unfunny. The plot isn't very interesting and seems pretty formulaic, the formula being the first movie. It was, in fact, almost a remake of the original with some names changed and situations altered. Both my daughter and I were very unhappy with it and did not think it a very worthy sequel to the first film. The original 1984 GHOSTBUSTERS still plays like a film that was the product of some imaginations in the grip of a real vision, while the sequel feels like a film made to cash in on the success of the former. It isn't like they weren't trying, they simply weren't inspired. GHOSTBUSTERS 2 just is not a worthy sequel of one of the more memorable light comedies of the eighties. Speaking for the two of us, we definitely enjoyed the first movie, but wish we had passed on the second one. I just hope that I remember the latter as poorly as I did the first time.
	Ghostbusters (UMD Mini For PSP)
	"The original has held up well over time"	2009-11-14
My daughter and I just did a GHOST BUSTERS double bill in honor of her upcoming move to New York, where she will be working at Columbia University, which is where Bill Murray and his paranomal colleague are studying at the beginning of the first film. We both really enjoyed the original and felt that it had more than held up over time, but we we were tremendously disappointed with the sequel. This is a joint review of both films. We watched the original film on Blu-ray and the second one on regular DVD. I won't say much more about the format except to say that the quality of the Blu-ray was somewhat disappointing. In fact, the quality of the DVD was very nearly as good as the Blu-ray. Rewatching the first film, it was fascinating to see what a simple story it told, and how short it was. There really is very little to the film apart from the simple story and a string of scenes the become a framework for a series of jokes. The one thing that surprised me was that I don't find Bill Murray's jokes, many of which feel ad libbed, as funny as I did when I saw it when it first came out. This is balanced by Harold Ramis and Dan Ackroyd being funnier than I remembered. The special effects all look pretty good by today's standards, except for Slimer, who didn't much appeal to me when the film came out and still doesn't. But the highpoint of the movie, then as now, is the Stay-Puft marshmallow man, which is definitely one of the greatest movie monsters ever. I saw the sequel when it came out, but over the years found it odd that I couldn't remember anything about it. I remembered that Sigourney Weaver's character had a baby, but that was the extent of it. Rewatching the film it is easy to see why I couldn't remember anything about it: it is simply not a very memorable film. The pace and the rhythm are erratic and many of the jokes are simply unfunny. The plot isn't very interesting and seems pretty formulaic, the formula being the first movie. It was, in fact, almost a remake of the original with some names changed and situations altered. Both my daughter and I were very unhappy with it and did not think it a very worthy sequel to the first film. The original 1984 GHOSTBUSTERS still plays like a film that was the product of some imaginations in the grip of a real vision, while the sequel feels like a film made to cash in on the success of the former. It isn't like they weren't trying, they simply weren't inspired. GHOSTBUSTERS 2 just is not a worthy sequel of one of the more memorable light comedies of the eighties. Speaking for the two of us, we definitely enjoyed the first movie, but wish we had passed on the second one. I just hope that I remember the latter as poorly as I did the first time.
	Rendezvous with Rama
	"A classic that has held up despite changing trends"	2009-11-11
Of the "Big Three" writers to come out of the pulp era of SF -- the other two being Asimov and Heinlein -- Clarke has suffered less in a fall in reputation. During the forties and fifties, SF was considered incompatible with good writing. This was not the opinion of those outside SF, but those inside it, like famed editor John W. Campbell, who felt that strong character studies and a deftly honed prose style detracted from what SF should be about: the imaginative depiction of scientific ideas, preferably in a futuristic and heroic setting. Campbell and others felt that it was worst than a waste of time to write well; it was, by his lights, wrong-headed. Times have changed. SF has become more and more a part of literature, both with mainstream writers like Marge Piercy and Margaret Atwood writing SF novels and with SF writers like Stanislaw Lem, Philip K. Dick, J. G. Ballard, and Ursula K. LeGuin. Especially after literary critics like Darko Suvin and Fredric Jameson began discussing SF seriously from within the academy, books that were of superior literary quality began to eclipse the older writers. Asimov and Heinlein have suffered enormously in the wake of these changes. Their character development is amateurish at best and their prose styles sloppy. Neither was, to put it bluntly, a good writer. So why has Clarke fared better than Asimov and Heinlein? I think there are two reasons, one good and one not so good. The not so good reason is the success of the great Stanly Kubrick film 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, based on the Clarke short story "The Sentinel." Asimov and Heinlein were never associated with any projects anywhere near this excellent. The success of the film has, I think, made many people imagine that Clarke was a more skill writer (in the mainstream sense) than he was in fact. The second and better reason is that Clarke possessed a powerful scientific imagination. As other reviewers here have noted, he was quite terrible with character. To call his characters cardboardish is an insult to good cardboard. Nor is Clarke good with dialogue or writing memorable prose. But Clarke does excel at imagining some truly astonishing things and then embellishing them with brilliant ideas. His ideas are simply brilliant and some have already been adopted by scientists, like his imagining of the geostationary satellite. And in FOUNTAINS OF PARADISE he envisioned a space elevator, an idea that some scientists believe has definite potential and could become the primary way we reach outer space at some point in the future (his idea has been used in many other SF novels, probably never better than in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy). Many of the things that Clarke imagines are truly exciting and his imagination was never finer than in RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA. The notion is superficially outrageous. What observers in our solar system imagine at first to be a comet or meteor turns out to be an artificial object of inconceivably huge proportions. Measuring fifty kilometers long, it was more a self-propelled planet than a spaceship. There is very little plot. There is some political intrigue that serves to complicate matters a bit, but essentially it is the story of humans rendezvousing with what they have dubbed Rama and exploring it. What makes the book so brilliant is the sheer outrageousness of the description of Rama with the plausibility that he introduces in describing the extraordinary creation. Rama is such an amazing invention that any effort to introduce plot would have detracted from it. The book was less successful when he delved into future cultural and social developments. He unconvincingly imagines men taking more than one wife or women giving birth by more than one man (though interestingly, no relationships between men and men or between women and women). And the notion of genetically creating super intelligent chimps to perform routine tasks on the spaceships of the future was not very compelling. Still, the gigantic spaceship Rama, easily the largest ship ever imagined in SF, towers over everything else in the book. Clarke could have erred for more than he did and still have the novel be a highly memorable one. It is not Clarke's best book -- CHILDHOOD'S END is not merely his best book but one of the finest SF novels ever written -- but it is his most audacious one. No matter how SF literary trends evolve in the future, this book will survive, and deserves to do so.
	Mort
	"One of the best of the early Discworld books"	2009-11-07
I'm currently reading/rereading the entire run of Discworld books, in order. I previously had read about a third of all the books, but nowhere close to any order. Death probably appears in more books than any other character in the series, and plays a major role in five of the titles in the series, this being the first. This is the first one where we learn much about Death, where he lives, what rules governs his vocation, and his associates (like Albert). And, we learn the delightful name of Death's fearful steed: Binky. Like all of Pratchett's books, I find myself less interested in the plot of this novel than in the way it builds up a little bit of the Discworld universe. I like out each book allows you to explore a little bit more of Discworld, of having the characters you know from one book interact with characters from another book, of learning a bit more about the mythology of the books. I can recall hundreds of little details about characters, ideas, places, species, guilds, and the like, but I am not sure I can remember more than one or two plots or any of the books. Pratchett is hardly the only writer of whom something like this holds true. Pretty famously Raymond Chandler is not regarded as very good at plot. You don't read FAREWELL MY LOVELY or THE GOODBYE LOOK in order to find out "what happens next." You read Chandler for his extraordinary characters, the amazingly seedy Los Angeles he describes, and his absolutely astonishing prose. Interestingly, I think the main reason we read Pratchett is for his delightfully odd characters, the way he describes the Discworld, and his hysterically funny prose. I don't think calling him the Raymond Chandler of comic fantasy would really help anyone understand his work, but they do share some similarities and virtues. I'm not sure how long it will take me to read all the books in the series. I'm reading several books in between each Discworld book, so it may take me well over a year. So far I'm only reading a couple of Pratchett's books a month. But in a way this is a great thing. For the next year and a half I'll be able to visit Pratchett's nutty creation again and again.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [HD DVD]
	"Easily the finest of all the Harry Potter films"	2009-10-30
There are two reasons that HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the best of all the films in the series. First and foremost, the movie was headed by one of the finest directors working in the world today, Alfonso Cuarón, directed of one of the greatest films of the 21st century, THE CHILDREN OF MEN, as well as the celebrated Mexican film Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN. The first two films frequently suffer from pacing and rhythm problems. Things just frequently feel "off." Too many scenes don't work or are too abbreviated. But the worst thing about the first two movies is that they focus on the most lamentable parts of the relevant books and then drag them out. Cuarón is, unlike Chris Columbus, a genius. Second, THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the last book in the series that can be moderately summed up in a film. THE GOBLET OF FIRE was the first of the Harry Potter books that could be considered a very long book. So THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN contained most of the highlights of the novel without seriously abbreviating the story. But I don't want to exaggerate things. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works as a movie less because it summarizes the events of the book than because it gets at the heart of the story and repackages it into a new medium. Ultimately THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works not because it is a good adaptation of a movie, but because it is a great movie on its own merits. That really does sum up why this is the best of the Harry Potter movies: it is the only one of the films that stands on its own. All of the other of the movies play as if the director/writer has an eye on the movie from which they are derived. Too their credit, subsequent movies try to follow in the path of AZKABAN and several of them are entertaining. But what is lacking is the great script of this film and the impeccable talent of Alfonso Cuarón. One of the most impressive things about the series of films as a whole is the extraordinary array of acting talent. The main three improved tremendously after the first two movies and they were constantly surrounded by an amazing group of actors. In this film such excellent actors as Robert Hardy, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Julie Christie, and David Thewlis join the cast. It is amazing that actors of this quality join and already impressive group of performers. Sadly, another great actor, Michael Gambon, joined the cast under sad circumstances. After the death of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two movies, Gambon took over as head of Hogwarts. I loved Harris and I regretted his loss, but Gambon stepped into the role and didn't miss a beat. While I've loved the subsequent Harry Potter movies, none of them have come up to the level of this one. In fact, in an objective list of the great fantasy movies ever made, this is the one entry from the series that could make such a list. By any standard, this is a great movie. Sadly Alfonso Cuarón declined offers to direct subsequent films in the series. Well, kinda sadly. How can you regret that the movie he made instead of THE GOBLET OF FIRE was THE CHILDREN OF MEN, which is quite possibly the greatest dystopian movie ever made? As I said, that movie would feature in any discussion of the very greatest movies made in the last decade. Still, while I love that movie dearly (if you haven't seen it, you should make a point of doing so immediately), I'm sorry that he couldn't have continued with the Harry Potter series. Heck, I wish he could have made all of them. Frankly, I am shocked that they were able to get an actor of his stature involved with this series to begin with. Even though he did not continue with the series, he at least elevated the tone from the first two films. Thanks to him the rest of the series aspired to be more, even if later directors did not always succeed.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Full Screen Edition)
	"Easily the finest of all the Harry Potter films"	2009-10-30
There are two reasons that HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the best of all the films in the series. First and foremost, the movie was headed by one of the finest directors working in the world today, Alfonso Cuarón, directed of one of the greatest films of the 21st century, THE CHILDREN OF MEN, as well as the celebrated Mexican film Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN. The first two films frequently suffer from pacing and rhythm problems. Things just frequently feel "off." Too many scenes don't work or are too abbreviated. But the worst thing about the first two movies is that they focus on the most lamentable parts of the relevant books and then drag them out. Cuarón is, unlike Chris Columbus, a genius. Second, THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the last book in the series that can be moderately summed up in a film. THE GOBLET OF FIRE was the first of the Harry Potter books that could be considered a very long book. So THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN contained most of the highlights of the novel without seriously abbreviating the story. But I don't want to exaggerate things. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works as a movie less because it summarizes the events of the book than because it gets at the heart of the story and repackages it into a new medium. Ultimately THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works not because it is a good adaptation of a movie, but because it is a great movie on its own merits. That really does sum up why this is the best of the Harry Potter movies: it is the only one of the films that stands on its own. All of the other of the movies play as if the director/writer has an eye on the movie from which they are derived. Too their credit, subsequent movies try to follow in the path of AZKABAN and several of them are entertaining. But what is lacking is the great script of this film and the impeccable talent of Alfonso Cuarón. One of the most impressive things about the series of films as a whole is the extraordinary array of acting talent. The main three improved tremendously after the first two movies and they were constantly surrounded by an amazing group of actors. In this film such excellent actors as Robert Hardy, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Julie Christie, and David Thewlis join the cast. It is amazing that actors of this quality join and already impressive group of performers. Sadly, another great actor, Michael Gambon, joined the cast under sad circumstances. After the death of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two movies, Gambon took over as head of Hogwarts. I loved Harris and I regretted his loss, but Gambon stepped into the role and didn't miss a beat. While I've loved the subsequent Harry Potter movies, none of them have come up to the level of this one. In fact, in an objective list of the great fantasy movies ever made, this is the one entry from the series that could make such a list. By any standard, this is a great movie. Sadly Alfonso Cuarón declined offers to direct subsequent films in the series. Well, kinda sadly. How can you regret that the movie he made instead of THE GOBLET OF FIRE was THE CHILDREN OF MEN, which is quite possibly the greatest dystopian movie ever made? As I said, that movie would feature in any discussion of the very greatest movies made in the last decade. Still, while I love that movie dearly (if you haven't seen it, you should make a point of doing so immediately), I'm sorry that he couldn't have continued with the Harry Potter series. Heck, I wish he could have made all of them. Frankly, I am shocked that they were able to get an actor of his stature involved with this series to begin with. Even though he did not continue with the series, he at least elevated the tone from the first two films. Thanks to him the rest of the series aspired to be more, even if later directors did not always succeed.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Widescreen Edition)
	"Easily the finest of all the Harry Potter films"	2009-10-30
There are two reasons that HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the best of all the films in the series. First and foremost, the movie was headed by one of the finest directors working in the world today, Alfonso Cuarón, directed of one of the greatest films of the 21st century, THE CHILDREN OF MEN, as well as the celebrated Mexican film Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN. The first two films frequently suffer from pacing and rhythm problems. Things just frequently feel "off." Too many scenes don't work or are too abbreviated. But the worst thing about the first two movies is that they focus on the most lamentable parts of the relevant books and then drag them out. Cuarón is, unlike Chris Columbus, a genius. Second, THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the last book in the series that can be moderately summed up in a film. THE GOBLET OF FIRE was the first of the Harry Potter books that could be considered a very long book. So THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN contained most of the highlights of the novel without seriously abbreviating the story. But I don't want to exaggerate things. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works as a movie less because it summarizes the events of the book than because it gets at the heart of the story and repackages it into a new medium. Ultimately THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works not because it is a good adaptation of a movie, but because it is a great movie on its own merits. That really does sum up why this is the best of the Harry Potter movies: it is the only one of the films that stands on its own. All of the other of the movies play as if the director/writer has an eye on the movie from which they are derived. Too their credit, subsequent movies try to follow in the path of AZKABAN and several of them are entertaining. But what is lacking is the great script of this film and the impeccable talent of Alfonso Cuarón. One of the most impressive things about the series of films as a whole is the extraordinary array of acting talent. The main three improved tremendously after the first two movies and they were constantly surrounded by an amazing group of actors. In this film such excellent actors as Robert Hardy, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Julie Christie, and David Thewlis join the cast. It is amazing that actors of this quality join and already impressive group of performers. Sadly, another great actor, Michael Gambon, joined the cast under sad circumstances. After the death of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two movies, Gambon took over as head of Hogwarts. I loved Harris and I regretted his loss, but Gambon stepped into the role and didn't miss a beat. While I've loved the subsequent Harry Potter movies, none of them have come up to the level of this one. In fact, in an objective list of the great fantasy movies ever made, this is the one entry from the series that could make such a list. By any standard, this is a great movie. Sadly Alfonso Cuarón declined offers to direct subsequent films in the series. Well, kinda sadly. How can you regret that the movie he made instead of THE GOBLET OF FIRE was THE CHILDREN OF MEN, which is quite possibly the greatest dystopian movie ever made? As I said, that movie would feature in any discussion of the very greatest movies made in the last decade. Still, while I love that movie dearly (if you haven't seen it, you should make a point of doing so immediately), I'm sorry that he couldn't have continued with the Harry Potter series. Heck, I wish he could have made all of them. Frankly, I am shocked that they were able to get an actor of his stature involved with this series to begin with. Even though he did not continue with the series, he at least elevated the tone from the first two films. Thanks to him the rest of the series aspired to be more, even if later directors did not always succeed.
	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
	"Not bad if you can moderate your expectations"	2009-10-05
This is a fun movie even though it suffers from some of the vices of the first movie in the series and not participating in the virtues of the subsequent films. There are some things that are better in this film than the first. In particular, Daniel Radcliffe evidences enormous improvement as an actor. And because there is less set up in this one than in the first film, they are able to delve more directly into storytelling. And as in the first film, Hogwarts is rendered memorably. Still, the film is in many ways a disappointment. Chris Columbus's direction was as weak in the second as in the first and either he or the film's editor had to take responsibility for the terrible pacing in many of the film's scenes. On every level, all subsequent films would be better directed and edited. One might quibble over the script, but not the direction and editing. Future films would not drag in individual scenes like in this one. I do, however, have a lot of problem with the script for this film. Any adaptation of a novel by a movie has to make compromises. Still, ultimately the script has to function as an independent entity. The problem here was the abrupt and inelegant shifts from one scene to another, with no foreshadowing of what would come later or thematic repetition. Few parts of the screenplay resonate with other parts of the screenplay. Now, this very possibly is not the fault of the screenwriter. Directors and editors can radically alter screenplays during the course of filming. so unless we could see the original screenplay and to what degree it was preserved in the filming it is hard to blame the screenwriter. We blame the director. If what was filmed was the writer produced, a writer should have been brought in to fix it. I suspect that the director made changes. Who can say for sure. But one thing is for sure: the film has almost no narrative flow. And as an adaptation of a novel is does a poor job of maintaining its key themes. Luckily, the movies got much, much better. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is by any standard a great film, the best directed film in the series, while the later films were buoyed by very substantive stories. The movies are not nearly as good as the books. That is pretty much par for the course. There have been very, very few movies in the history of film that were better than the novels upon which they were based, except in cases where the novels were not very to begin with. One of the more humorous sidelights of the film was that some Russians took offense at the film, imagining that the elf Dobby was intended to look like Vladimir Putin. Some Russian lawyers for a while even contemplated taking legal action. There appears to be little justification for such an action. Whatever resemblance between Dobby and Putin would be strictly physical and Dobby in no other way would appear to refer to Putin. I personally think the easily offended lawyers needed to bash their heads a few times on their desks as penance for their silliness.
	Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Blu-ray]
	"Not bad if you can moderate your expectations"	2009-10-05
This is a fun movie even though it suffers from some of the vices of the first movie in the series and not participating in the virtues of the subsequent films. There are some things that are better in this film than the first. In particular, Daniel Radcliffe evidences enormous improvement as an actor. And because there is less set up in this one than in the first film, they are able to delve more directly into storytelling. And as in the first film, Hogwarts is rendered memorably. Still, the film is in many ways a disappointment. Chris Columbus's direction was as weak in the second as in the first and either he or the film's editor had to take responsibility for the terrible pacing in many of the film's scenes. On every level, all subsequent films would be better directed and edited. One might quibble over the script, but not the direction and editing. Future films would not drag in individual scenes like in this one. I do, however, have a lot of problem with the script for this film. Any adaptation of a novel by a movie has to make compromises. Still, ultimately the script has to function as an independent entity. The problem here was the abrupt and inelegant shifts from one scene to another, with no foreshadowing of what would come later or thematic repetition. Few parts of the screenplay resonate with other parts of the screenplay. Now, this very possibly is not the fault of the screenwriter. Directors and editors can radically alter screenplays during the course of filming. so unless we could see the original screenplay and to what degree it was preserved in the filming it is hard to blame the screenwriter. We blame the director. If what was filmed was the writer produced, a writer should have been brought in to fix it. I suspect that the director made changes. Who can say for sure. But one thing is for sure: the film has almost no narrative flow. And as an adaptation of a novel is does a poor job of maintaining its key themes. Luckily, the movies got much, much better. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is by any standard a great film, the best directed film in the series, while the later films were buoyed by very substantive stories. The movies are not nearly as good as the books. That is pretty much par for the course. There have been very, very few movies in the history of film that were better than the novels upon which they were based, except in cases where the novels were not very to begin with. One of the more humorous sidelights of the film was that some Russians took offense at the film, imagining that the elf Dobby was intended to look like Vladimir Putin. Some Russian lawyers for a while even contemplated taking legal action. There appears to be little justification for such an action. Whatever resemblance between Dobby and Putin would be strictly physical and Dobby in no other way would appear to refer to Putin. I personally think the easily offended lawyers needed to bash their heads a few times on their desks as penance for their silliness.
	Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets (Widescreen Edition)
	"Not bad if you can moderate your expectations"	2009-10-05
This is a fun movie even though it suffers from some of the vices of the first movie in the series and not participating in the virtues of the subsequent films. There are some things that are better in this film than the first. In particular, Daniel Radcliffe evidences enormous improvement as an actor. And because there is less set up in this one than in the first film, they are able to delve more directly into storytelling. And as in the first film, Hogwarts is rendered memorably. Still, the film is in many ways a disappointment. Chris Columbus's direction was as weak in the second as in the first and either he or the film's editor had to take responsibility for the terrible pacing in many of the film's scenes. On every level, all subsequent films would be better directed and edited. One might quibble over the script, but not the direction and editing. Future films would not drag in individual scenes like in this one. I do, however, have a lot of problem with the script for this film. Any adaptation of a novel by a movie has to make compromises. Still, ultimately the script has to function as an independent entity. The problem here was the abrupt and inelegant shifts from one scene to another, with no foreshadowing of what would come later or thematic repetition. Few parts of the screenplay resonate with other parts of the screenplay. Now, this very possibly is not the fault of the screenwriter. Directors and editors can radically alter screenplays during the course of filming. so unless we could see the original screenplay and to what degree it was preserved in the filming it is hard to blame the screenwriter. We blame the director. If what was filmed was the writer produced, a writer should have been brought in to fix it. I suspect that the director made changes. Who can say for sure. But one thing is for sure: the film has almost no narrative flow. And as an adaptation of a novel is does a poor job of maintaining its key themes. Luckily, the movies got much, much better. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is by any standard a great film, the best directed film in the series, while the later films were buoyed by very substantive stories. The movies are not nearly as good as the books. That is pretty much par for the course. There have been very, very few movies in the history of film that were better than the novels upon which they were based, except in cases where the novels were not very to begin with. One of the more humorous sidelights of the film was that some Russians took offense at the film, imagining that the elf Dobby was intended to look like Vladimir Putin. Some Russian lawyers for a while even contemplated taking legal action. There appears to be little justification for such an action. Whatever resemblance between Dobby and Putin would be strictly physical and Dobby in no other way would appear to refer to Putin. I personally think the easily offended lawyers needed to bash their heads a few times on their desks as penance for their silliness.
	Memorex 100PK DVD-R 16X 4.7GB SPINDLE ( 32025641 )
	"Nice improvement in redesign of discs"	2009-10-04
I've always been sceptical of low reviews based failure rate. I've used Memorex discs on three or four occasions (by that, I mean that I've purchased three or four 100 Pack Spindles -- I buy what is cheapest either on Amazon or at my local Staples). I have found none of the problems with failure that some other reviewers have noted. I am not saying that they haven't had those problems. I can only assert that I have not had the same experience. I have, however, had some complaints with Memorex discs in the past. I do not bother to make labels for the discs that I burn -- I don't want to spend the money either on the printer ink or for labels. I write on the discs using DVD markers. Until recently Memorex's discs were all silver, but covered with a number of irritating dots. You could write over them, but the surfaces weren't as marker-friendly as other discs, like those made by TDK or Sony. So, my only complaint against Memorex has disappeared. This may, however, only be academic. Amazon is now producing its own brand of blank DVDs. I've been extremely happy with both the DVD+R and DVD-R discs that Amazon now makes. And their prices so far have been below $20 for a 100 Pack Spindle. If Amazon maintains those prices I'm unlikely to buy anything other than Amazon discs in the future. But if Amazon raises its prices and if Memorex puts its disc on sale, I would definitely feel comfortable buying them in the future.
	Memorex DVD+R 16x 4.7GB 100 Pack Spindle
	"Nice improvement in redesign of discs"	2009-10-04
I've always been sceptical of low reviews based failure rate. I've used Memorex discs on three or four occasions (by that, I mean that I've purchased three or four 100 Pack Spindles -- I buy what is cheapest either on Amazon or at my local Staples). I have found none of the problems with failure that some other reviewers have noted. I am not saying that they haven't had those problems. I can only assert that I have not had the same experience. I have, however, had some complaints with Memorex discs in the past. I do not bother to make labels for the discs that I burn -- I don't want to spend the money either on the printer ink or for labels. I write on the discs using DVD markers. Until recently Memorex's discs were all silver, but covered with a number of irritating dots. You could write over them, but the surfaces weren't as marker-friendly as other discs, like those made by TDK or Sony. So, my only complaint against Memorex has disappeared. This may, however, only be academic. Amazon is now producing its own brand of blank DVDs. I've been extremely happy with both the DVD+R and DVD-R discs that Amazon now makes. And their prices so far have been below $20 for a 100 Pack Spindle. If Amazon maintains those prices I'm unlikely to buy anything other than Amazon discs in the future. But if Amazon raises its prices and if Memorex puts its disc on sale, I would definitely feel comfortable buying them in the future.
	Batman - The Animated Series, Volume One (DC Comics Classic Collection)
	"Almost two decades later, still an enormously impressive series"	2009-10-04
When my daughter was extremely young, I would record BATMAN - THE ANIMATED SERIES on our VCR and after picking her up at the babysitter, she and I would watch that days episode. I was careful as a parent not to expose her to junk and anxious for her to see only the best entertainment suitable for kids. I also loved watching BATMAN with her because it was such an incredibly impressive show. The animation in almost every shot is carefully thought out and beautifully designed. Almost every shot is suitable for framing. Rewatching these recently for the first time since viewing them as they came out for the first time I was delighted to see that I found them as good as ever. These were the cartoons that started DC's remarkable string of shows that have continued into the present (Marvel has dominated feature length films, but DC has been far more effective on the animated front). And they remain among the finest animated cartoons ever made for television.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Book 3)
	"A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic"	2009-10-03
The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions. There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
	"A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic"	2009-10-03
The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions. There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
	"A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic"	2009-10-03
The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions. There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - LARGE PRINT #3 by J. K. Rowling, ISBN 0786222743
	"A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic"	2009-10-03
The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions. There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
	"A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic"	2009-10-03
The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions. There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book.
	Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
	"A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic"	2009-10-03
The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions. There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book.
	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Full Screen Edition)
	"A weak beginning to a series that would get much better"	2009-09-29
I find it interesting that both the books and the movies in the Harry Potter saga got much better as they went along. The book did not have to go as far as the movies to become excellent, but both of them got good with HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN. The difference in quality between the first two Harry Potter movies and the third is vast. Most of it was due to Alfonso Cuarón's amazing direction in the third film, after Chris Columbus's rather timid direction in the first two films. Alfonso Cuarón raised the standard in the film series to an entirely new level, and subsequent directors (Cuarón turned down offers to continue directing films in the series, instead opting to make the absolutely extraordinary CHILDREN OF MEN instead, easily one of the best films of the past decade) took THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN as the model to follow, instead of the lackluster first two films. The first film especially is hurt by the inexperienced lead actors. Daniel Radcliffe especially would improve as an actor in later films, but in this one he is often painful to watch, especially in the many shots in which Harry grins hugely, with the director holding the shot way beyond anyone's reasonable comfort level. Those in charge of casting might have wondered after the first film if they had done a wise job, but with each movie the three leads got better and better in their roles, to the point now where they are actually very good actors. Whatever gamble there was in casting the three definitely paid off. The general opinion at the time of the first film was that some or all the three young actors would need to be replaced by the time the final films were going to be made. Thankfully, they were able to complete all the films while the actors were young enough. Still, as good as they have become in later films, they were all, especially Daniel Radcliffe, difficulty to watch in this first film. But the real weakness in the film remains the incredibly bland direction. The first two films seem to have been made with 10-year-olds in mind. There is no darkness and they proceed from one gee-whiz moment to another. Still, the film is not without its merits. While the three young leads had not yet grown into their roles, the casting for most of the other roles was exceptional. Richard Harris before his death made a very fine Dumbledore. And how perfect is Robby Coltrane as Hagrid? The casting of the great Alan Rickman was prescient, since at the time of the first film it hadn't yet been made clear how important Snape would be to later installments. But as great as all of these people would be (and through THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE the supporting characters have been persistently brilliant), for me the single most delightful supporting actor is Richard Griffiths as Harry's utterly absurd and completely delightful Uncle Dursley. But still, too much of the film is nothing but set pieces and special effects and the like. There isn't much substance. Most kids that I've talked to seem to enjoy THE SORCERER'S STONE; almost all adults that I have talked to find it pretty dull. The best thing, however, is that the movies get much, much better as they go along. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is easily the best of the bunch, but all of the films released after it were much stronger than the first two. My big hope now is that the final two films (which will recount the final novel) will be as good.
	He, She and It
	"The of the two best novels on Cyborgs that I have ever read"	2009-09-27
I don't mean the title of my review title lightly. I truly do believe that this is the best novel on cyborgs or robots that I have ever read, along with Philip K. Dick's masterpiece DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SLEEP? Both books explore the question of personhood not merely by examining a central character who is a artificial human, but by looking at artificiality in human beings as well. Yod is a cyborg who has been constructed by a scientist in an independent Jewish enclave in the late 21st century. But the people in the novel are equally artificial. Some have been technically augmented to such an extent that they can't easily be considered human. Others have been altered in appearance by plastic surgery in order to conform to the latest aesthetic standards. Even the book's major character, Shira, has received multiple enhancements. Early in the book she is able to read the time off ocular implants and she, like most of the characters in the book, can go onto the Net by plugging into a plug attached to her brain. By the end of the book it isn't clear how sharply the line can be drawn between people and machines. HE, SHE AND IT (originally titled BODY OF GLASS) is both an updating and retelling of the Golem of Prague story. In the past century this story has been communicated most famously in the Paul Wegener film (who also played the Golem), where the Golem is portrayed as more a monster than anything (though not a very good movie, it is visually unforgettable, and was one of the major influences on James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN, especially in the portrayal of the monster). Golems have appeared in a number of books, TV series, and computer games (e.g., Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel FEET OF CLAY introduces a Golem who becomes a member of the Night Watch; an episode of THE X-FILES features a Golem; and golems have features in a number of games, such as the MMORPG Asheron's Call). In Piercy's novel the parallels between the Golem of Prague and Yod are underscored in many ways, not least in Malkah's telling to Yod of the story. Just as the golem Joseph was created by Rabbi Loeb to protect the Jewish ghetto in Prague from pograms, so Yod is created to protect an independent Jewish enclave from encroachment from one of the vast corporations that control the planet. Yod is one of the most fascinating cyborgs in literature. Many novelists have struggled to depict robots and cyborgs in convincing ways. Most novelists end up making the cyborgs pretty much indistinguishable from people. Others make the robots so mechanical as to be silly and unbelievable (I find this fault with almost all of Asimov's robots). Yod is less mechanical than Asimov's automatons, but more than inhuman. The story isn't completely immune to one of the most absurd assumptions ever made about robots and cyborgs: that they would be normally be made incapable of hurting people. The silly notion that robots would be incapable of hurting people was the fault of Asimov and his laws of robotics, some of the most nonsensical tripe ever put forward. Even a couple of seconds thought would be sufficient to make anyone realize that robots would initially be primarily created to hurt or kill humans. Most of the initial research on robots was done under the funding of DARPA, a branch of the Defense Department. Virtually all of the current research in robotics in the United States is funded by DARPA. And the U.S. military has thousands of robots on active duty. Ironically, PackBots are used in huge numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan in both armed an unarmed versions, and are made by the iRobot corporation (the makers of the Roomba vacuum cleaners), a corporation named in honor of Asimov's famous collection of short stories, stories in which he developed the silly notion of robots that would not hurt people. The most obvious use of robots is military situations where the danger to human life (at least to one's own soldiers) is minimized. The world that Marge Piercy assumes is a fascinating one. The United States has always been characterized by an almost unreasoning fear of government. At the same time, there is far less fear of companies and corporations. I'm the opposite. I'm terrified of the moral stance of the corporate world. Interestingly, the so-called founder of American conservatism, John Adams, was, like Adam Smith (who felt that those who participated in the market should play no role in government), leery about the influence that market forces and merchants would have on democracy. He feared an economic elite and felt that the most important role of the executive branch was to resist the formation of such an economic elite. So I've always found my country's belief in a benevolent corporate world to be odd at best. While Adams was, I think, wrong in hoping that the executive branch would act as an effective deterrent to corporate influences, I do think that we in the middle class are better off pegging our hopes on government as a deterrent to the corporate world than the corporate world as a deterrent to government. Most Sci-fi writers tend to view the corporate world with a sceptical eye. In Kim Stanley Robinson's great Mars Trilogy the bad guys are the transnational corporations who control the various national governments, and who see Mars as an asset to be exploited. In Piercy's novel, any semblance of either state or national government is nonexistent. Corporations have taken over the world. Or what is left of the world. The novel reflects the predictions of scientists of what will happen if something isn't done to reverse the effects of global warming. Coastlines are receding; people cannot go out into sunlight without danger to their health; water and air quality is dire; cities are intensely crowded. Corporations control everything and their pursuit of the small independent enclave that Yod protects is based partly on their desire to acquire the research they have been engaged in (primarily Yod himself), but mainly on their outrage of a village that exists outside of corporate influence. This is a marvelously rich and deeply textured novel. Marge Piercy is not primarily or even especially a Sci-fi writer, even though William Gibson has credited her earlier novel WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME with directly inspiring the birth of Cyberpunk. The problem with many Sci-fi novels is that they usually don't hold up as novels. They often contain many fascinating elements, but they usually do not compare well with the best mainstream novels with the quality of their prose or with character development. This novel is simply a fine novel, not merely a Sci-fi novel. The book has generated a significant literature by feminist literary critics and is frequently cited as an important work in the discussion of cyborgs (Piercy cites Donna Haraway's important essay "A Cyborg Manifesto" as an influence on her book). I believe that this should be read by anyone who loves books in general, but in particular by those interested in superbly written Sci-fi novels. It will also appeal to those who are interested in dystopian literature or by books that explore questions of gender in a Sci-fi context (it compares nicely with Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE in this regard). And if you are interested in great books on cyborgs and robots, this has to be on the shortest of short lists, even if that list has only one or two items.
	The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
	"An excellent, if overly polemical, explanation of the logic of evolutionary theory"	2009-09-23
I found this book somewhat frustrating. On the one hand, it is a brilliant and clear explanation of evolution and why it takes a huge failure in logic to deny its reality. (I write, by the way as a Christian. Like a huge number of religious individuals, as Dawkins notes, I see no necessary conflict between evolution and Christianity.) Dawkins frequently does a great job of explaining the logic of evolutionary theory and gives a good idea of the overwhelming amount of evidence -- on a number of different planes -- for its truth. On the other hand, Dawkins is a polemicist. It seems to be hardwired in his personality and he always chooses to write not only for the benefit of being understood but also to be in debate with someone. This combativeness does not mitigate the truth or accuracy of anything he writes, but it does give the book a certain tone that some might find off putting. At his best Dawkins does an extraordinary job of explaining clearly and eloquently. And I learned a great deal from his recounting. For instance, I was not really aware that the fossil record is not really important and played no role in the development of the theory of evolution. Neither Darwin nor Wallace based their theory on the fossil record nor have subsequent scientists. Dawkins brings this up in discussing those evolution deniers who point to a supposed gap in the fossil record as evidence against evolution. But Dawkins points out that since evolution was never based on the fossil record, this is no point against it; on the other hand, all of the fossil evidence as it currently exists provides overwhelming support to the theory. He also does a marvelous job of both explaining the logic of many ideas such as the rather silly "missing link" as well as what it means to say that panthers and rabbits both have predecessor species in common. As I said, a great deal of the book is polemical, but while I find the combative tone somewhat exasperating, it also provides a great deal of understanding. For instance, he points out that so many things in animal physiology do not point towards any kind of intelligent design; much design is quite unintelligent. The inefficiency of the human spine makes no sense from the standpoint of intelligent design, but makes a great deal of sense if you assume the reality of evolution. In other words, evolution can explain a host of vagaries in animals where intelligent design fails. I loved about 90% of this book but I was flabbergasted by one absolutely absurd assumption that Dawkins makes throughout. He repeatedly states that 40% of all Americans deny evolution and believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I know that there are many, many people who deny evolution, perhaps even the 40% that Dawkins cites. But it is simply and outrageously absurd to state that 40% believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is a preposterous assumption. I grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas, raised in a Southern Baptist church. I grew up surrounded by fundamentalists and in fact could have been considered a fundamentalist myself until college. That college was a Southern Baptist college and I later spent a year in a Southern Baptist Seminary before pursuing graduate studies elsewhere. I served as a music director or a youth director in several Southern Baptist churches, though I later left the SBC after numerous gestures of utter stupidity by the denomination (such as declaring that women were to be subservient to men). In other words, I've known a host of fundamentalists and evangelicals, many of whom deny the reality of evolution. But in that entire time I've known only one person who believed that the earth was only six thousand years old. It is simply ridiculous to believe that 40% of all Americans believe the earth is that young and are therefore the "history deniers" that Dawkins writes so vociferously against. How did such an intelligent man as Dawkins get this so wrong? I'm not completely sure, but he does state a false modus ponens: either you believe in evolution or you deny it and also believe the world is only 6,000 years old. I am quite confident that his 40% figure as regards people who do not believe in evolution is correct, but I am implacably certain that assuming that the same 40% believe the earth is only a few thousand years old it complete bunk. How a man as smart as Dawkins could believe such an absurdity is beyond my capacity to explain. It is like believing in unicorns or centaurs. Now, I can grant that it may not be logical to believe in an old earth and to deny evolution, but I believe that this is nonetheless the situation with most evangelicals who deny evolution. Their position may not ultimately make sense, but it doesn't mean that they willingly embrace a larger absurdity. I'm sure more people believe that the earth is only 6,000 year old than believe that the earth is flat, but I am pretty confident that the number of people who so believe is closer to the number of flat-earthers than the 40% Dawkins cites. Evangelicals really don't believe in huge numbers in a young earth, even if many do deny evolution. All in all, I heartily recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand contemporary science more fully. It also does a good job of exposing - as if it needed further exposure - the baselessness of intelligent design. I do, in fact, unlike Dawkins, believe in God as creator of the universe. But that isn't what "intelligent design" holds. It is a name for a competing view of the fact of animals species that is intended as a competitor for evolution. The problem is that it really isn't a scientific theory. Evolution looks at the scientific data and draws conclusions from it. Intelligent design starts off with what it wants to conclude and then goes off looking for evidence. That simply is not the way science works. And as a Christian who believes that science makes sense because God created the universe with logical principles that we, as created in the image of god, can discover, I want to see my fellow Christians give up well-intended but ultimately un-Christian theories. God does not love untruth and Intelligent Design is no true. Dawkins would not agree with anything in this paragraph, but he does cite Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Pope Benedict as two people who would agree with what I've just written. On a side note, I bought my copy of this book in a Borders on a shelf that also displayed an audiobook version of the book. I was interested to see that it was read by both Dawkins and his wife Laila Ward. Fans of DOCTOR WHO may remember Laila Ward as Romana, the companion of the Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker, to whom she was briefly married (obviously, before she was married to Richard Dawkins).
	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
	"A wonderful beginning to a great series -- and it is great on a rereading!"	2009-09-20
I am currently rereading the Harry Potter books for the first time since J. K. Rowling concluded her series. What most impressed me about the series the first time through was how much better it got as it went along. The first two novels in the series -- THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS -- were fun and interesting, but not great. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, however, I did think qualified as great, and the subsequent books were even better. I tremendously admired Rowling in all this. I'm sure that she had absolutely no idea that the books would become the phenomenon that they did. She could have coasted and produced several more novels on the same level as the first two, but instead she worked extremely hard, improved her craft, and kept faith with her readers. The quality of the first novels compared with the later novels is immense. Whether or not the series deserved the degree of hype it received early on can be debated, but by the time Rowling completed her saga it definitely warranted all the praise that it had received. Nonetheless, even though THE SORCERER'S STONE is nowhere as good as the later books would be, this is a better book than I remembered. Rowling does a tremendous job of setting up the overall situation, imbuing her story with primal elements that perfectly appeal not merely to child readers, but any reader. Many of these elements are similar to what one finds in classic fairy tales: a child with a hidden destiny and unacknowledged worth is abused and debased by uncaring foster parents. This is as basic a set up as they come. And the details that Rowling develops as she chronicles Harry's life with the Dursleys are exquisite. There are times when she almost goes over the top and the neglect of the Dursleys become absurd, but all in all the effect is delightful. The contrast between Harry's nightmarish life with the Dursleys and his exciting, if sometimes dangerous, life at Hogwarts is immense. The closest thing I have to a complaint to the first novel is that the overall story is simply not very strong. What makes up for this is the frequently delicious description of Hogwarts. The places, traditions, people, and entities she describes are consistently marvelous. Diagon Alley, Haggrid, the Hogwarts Express departing from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, the Sorting Hat, the four houses of Hogwarts, Nearly Headless Nick, and numerous other details are simply superb. And Rowling creates a wonderful cast of characters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are a truly great trio, as is Dumbledore and Snape and all the denizens of Hogwarts. As I said, I think the dramatic arc of this novel is the weakest part of the book, but the world she creates is nearly perfect. The subsequent novels would exploit this wonderful world to create a great overall story. Now I'm going to say something controversial and will probably make some people mad, but I want to write an honest review. For me the one really false note that runs through all of the Harry Potter books is quidditch, which is improbably described as the greatest game in the world. I find almost nothing interesting and appealing about this game, even if people could ride on brooms. One could point to a host of minor problems with the game, but the biggest would be the absurd number of points assigned to the catching of the Golden Snitch. Catching the Snitch garners so many points as to render the rest of the game as nearly irrelevant. Apart from the fact that the game is played by people who are flying, I found almost nothing interesting about the game. And as much as I came to love the series in the later novels, I never came to like anything about quidditch. All in all this is a fine start to a great series. The main achievement in this first book is the wonderful, literally magical world that Rowling creates. While the stories would get better, the initial set up could not have been more perfect. I look anxiously forward to the next book in the series.
	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1)
	"A wonderful beginning to a great series -- and it is great on a rereading!"	2009-09-20
I am currently rereading the Harry Potter books for the first time since J. K. Rowling concluded her series. What most impressed me about the series the first time through was how much better it got as it went along. The first two novels in the series -- THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS -- were fun and interesting, but not great. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, however, I did think qualified as great, and the subsequent books were even better. I tremendously admired Rowling in all this. I'm sure that she had absolutely no idea that the books would become the phenomenon that they did. She could have coasted and produced several more novels on the same level as the first two, but instead she worked extremely hard, improved her craft, and kept faith with her readers. The quality of the first novels compared with the later novels is immense. Whether or not the series deserved the degree of hype it received early on can be debated, but by the time Rowling completed her saga it definitely warranted all the praise that it had received. Nonetheless, even though THE SORCERER'S STONE is nowhere as good as the later books would be, this is a better book than I remembered. Rowling does a tremendous job of setting up the overall situation, imbuing her story with primal elements that perfectly appeal not merely to child readers, but any reader. Many of these elements are similar to what one finds in classic fairy tales: a child with a hidden destiny and unacknowledged worth is abused and debased by uncaring foster parents. This is as basic a set up as they come. And the details that Rowling develops as she chronicles Harry's life with the Dursleys are exquisite. There are times when she almost goes over the top and the neglect of the Dursleys become absurd, but all in all the effect is delightful. The contrast between Harry's nightmarish life with the Dursleys and his exciting, if sometimes dangerous, life at Hogwarts is immense. The closest thing I have to a complaint to the first novel is that the overall story is simply not very strong. What makes up for this is the frequently delicious description of Hogwarts. The places, traditions, people, and entities she describes are consistently marvelous. Diagon Alley, Haggrid, the Hogwarts Express departing from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, the Sorting Hat, the four houses of Hogwarts, Nearly Headless Nick, and numerous other details are simply superb. And Rowling creates a wonderful cast of characters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are a truly great trio, as is Dumbledore and Snape and all the denizens of Hogwarts. As I said, I think the dramatic arc of this novel is the weakest part of the book, but the world she creates is nearly perfect. The subsequent novels would exploit this wonderful world to create a great overall story. Now I'm going to say something controversial and will probably make some people mad, but I want to write an honest review. For me the one really false note that runs through all of the Harry Potter books is quidditch, which is improbably described as the greatest game in the world. I find almost nothing interesting and appealing about this game, even if people could ride on brooms. One could point to a host of minor problems with the game, but the biggest would be the absurd number of points assigned to the catching of the Golden Snitch. Catching the Snitch garners so many points as to render the rest of the game as nearly irrelevant. Apart from the fact that the game is played by people who are flying, I found almost nothing interesting about the game. And as much as I came to love the series in the later novels, I never came to like anything about quidditch. All in all this is a fine start to a great series. The main achievement in this first book is the wonderful, literally magical world that Rowling creates. While the stories would get better, the initial set up could not have been more perfect. I look anxiously forward to the next book in the series.
	Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter (Paperback))
	"A wonderful beginning to a great series -- and it is great on a rereading!"	2009-09-20
I am currently rereading the Harry Potter books for the first time since J. K. Rowling concluded her series. What most impressed me about the series the first time through was how much better it got as it went along. The first two novels in the series -- THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS -- were fun and interesting, but not great. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, however, I did think qualified as great, and the subsequent books were even better. I tremendously admired Rowling in all this. I'm sure that she had absolutely no idea that the books would become the phenomenon that they did. She could have coasted and produced several more novels on the same level as the first two, but instead she worked extremely hard, improved her craft, and kept faith with her readers. The quality of the first novels compared with the later novels is immense. Whether or not the series deserved the degree of hype it received early on can be debated, but by the time Rowling completed her saga it definitely warranted all the praise that it had received. Nonetheless, even though THE SORCERER'S STONE is nowhere as good as the later books would be, this is a better book than I remembered. Rowling does a tremendous job of setting up the overall situation, imbuing her story with primal elements that perfectly appeal not merely to child readers, but any reader. Many of these elements are similar to what one finds in classic fairy tales: a child with a hidden destiny and unacknowledged worth is abused and debased by uncaring foster parents. This is as basic a set up as they come. And the details that Rowling develops as she chronicles Harry's life with the Dursleys are exquisite. There are times when she almost goes over the top and the neglect of the Dursleys become absurd, but all in all the effect is delightful. The contrast between Harry's nightmarish life with the Dursleys and his exciting, if sometimes dangerous, life at Hogwarts is immense. The closest thing I have to a complaint to the first novel is that the overall story is simply not very strong. What makes up for this is the frequently delicious description of Hogwarts. The places, traditions, people, and entities she describes are consistently marvelous. Diagon Alley, Haggrid, the Hogwarts Express departing from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, the Sorting Hat, the four houses of Hogwarts, Nearly Headless Nick, and numerous other details are simply superb. And Rowling creates a wonderful cast of characters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are a truly great trio, as is Dumbledore and Snape and all the denizens of Hogwarts. As I said, I think the dramatic arc of this novel is the weakest part of the book, but the world she creates is nearly perfect. The subsequent novels would exploit this wonderful world to create a great overall story. Now I'm going to say something controversial and will probably make some people mad, but I want to write an honest review. For me the one really false note that runs through all of the Harry Potter books is quidditch, which is improbably described as the greatest game in the world. I find almost nothing interesting and appealing about this game, even if people could ride on brooms. One could point to a host of minor problems with the game, but the biggest would be the absurd number of points assigned to the catching of the Golden Snitch. Catching the Snitch garners so many points as to render the rest of the game as nearly irrelevant. Apart from the fact that the game is played by people who are flying, I found almost nothing interesting about the game. And as much as I came to love the series in the later novels, I never came to like anything about quidditch. All in all this is a fine start to a great series. The main achievement in this first book is the wonderful, literally magical world that Rowling creates. While the stories would get better, the initial set up could not have been more perfect. I look anxiously forward to the next book in the series.