The synopsis: Harry Potter, a precocious magical talent on account of being the offspring of two talented magicians, is left on the doorstep of his "muggle" aunt and uncle after being orphaned when his parents die "in a car crash". I'm not revealing too much right here when I tell you that his parents didn't actually die in a car crash but at the hands of the villain of the story, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. As is usually the case for young heroes and heroines who are too clever and talented to be accepted in the world around them, the treatment Harry receives at the hands of his adoptive parents is nothing short of abusive (he is made to sleep under the cupboard under the stairs). Nevertheless, he is unperturbed by his loveless childhood and takes it in his stride; and when the time comes for his true nature to be made known to him, he gladly leaves his aunt and uncle for Hogworts' School of Magic, whereupon he makes fast friends with a shy loner, is bullied without motive by the bigger, stronger boys from the evil Slytherian house, and hooks up with the bookish Hermione. And the rest, as they say, is cliche history.
I'd like to make the point right now that as a child the only "magical realism" books I read were the Narnia chronicles - I tended to go for the SF end such as John Christopher and Nicholas Fisk. That being said, the stock plotting of the first Potter book stands out a mile. On the one hand, there are only a finite number of plots in the world, and they are bound to be repeated again and again; but the devices used in Potter are so blindingly obvious it made me groan. I'm sure that the reason that so many adults are keen on the books is not to do with characterisation, or emotive content, but the sheer nostalgia of encountering a long-lost plot from another childhood novel.
This cannot account for the success that Rowling has had with her target audience, however. We must concede a victory to media hype, but if the books were not as good as they are in the first place then they would not be enjoying the success they have. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a good book: it is tightly plotted, scans well, is full of colour in both scenes and characters and does show some originality in its variety of magic, at least for a mainstream audience. Naturally readers from the speculative end of the market will think nothing of telepathic hats, intelligent owls, magic wands and the differentiation between types of magic (charms, sorcery, potions et al). But for mainstream readers these ideas are communicated with wonder whilst remaining accessable to the mainstream reader. It makes for a reasonable beginning for kid's speculative fiction, after which they can move on to the more esoteric stuff of Philip Pullman, for instance.
The book is far from perfect, however. Cliches in plotlines are forgivable when you consider that they are not cliches to the young readership. The more serious flaws lie in characterisation and the motives of the characters. Many of the acts of the characters seem to be without motive - the Durseley's abusive treatment of Harry for one, the unnecessary bullying by the boys of Slytherian for another. Paradoxically, the adult reader can see these Dahl-ish caricatures for what they are - simply larger-than-life personifications of evil and neglect. However, one has to question their presence in a children's book. Throughout all of this mistreatment, Harry seems generally unmoved. This is slightly worrying, especially in light of the last paragraph, where he announces that he's "going to have fun this summer - Dudley doesn't know he's not allowed to practice magic on muggles". In other words, life is about being abused by your peers, and should the power to do likewise to them fall into your hands, then you are free to hurt them as much as they have hurt you.
I enjoyed the book, and although I didn't think much of the plot, the pace and imagery were excellent. The series has great potential, although if the Goblet of Fire is as simplistic as the Philosopher's Stone then I will be loathe to have to wade through it as it's about three times the size.
My only real disappointment was Quiddich. For some reason, I thought that the game would be a sort of magical version of quoits. Instead it's just lacrosse on broomsticks. Yawn.
