Judging by this first volume, the Harry Potter books are a fine addition to English children's fantasy literature. Harry Potter, orphaned when his parents are killed by the evil wizard Voldemort, is taken in by his aunt and uncle, who are Muggles — ordinary, non-magical people. Harry is rather out of place there, but things improve greatly for him when he goes to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry — except that one of the staff is in league with Voldemort.
Part of the attraction of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone comes from the familiar but at the same time exotic setting of an English public school, complete with houses and schoolboy adventures, in which Harry and his friends Ron and Hermione struggle to save the world and win the house cup. Part of it comes from the pleasantly frivolous (verging on spoof) take on the trappings of pop magic, with pointy hats and "Nimbus 2000" series broomsticks. And Rowling adds some delightful novelties of her own, such as Quidditch, a seven-a-side ball game played on broomsticks, with three different kinds of balls. This is all pulled together by some excellent story-telling.
I can't understand, however, why quite so much fuss has been made about the Potter books.
Re: Harry potter
Isn't it just the facination of a chlidrens book (at least that's what it was called in the beginning) that turns out to be so full of evil and death that it's no childrens book any more at all?