Scan barcode
greenvillemelissa's review against another edition
4.0
This book would be a good read for a serious Harry Potter fan. It analyzes each of the books in the series, by small groups of chapters. Reading it made me realize I remember the movies much better than the books so a reread is in order. I enjoyed it.
kylearnzen's review against another edition
3.0
Enjoyable enough, but I was hoping there would be some more substantial finds from the author. Lots of interesting little tidbits, though.
melissapalmer404's review against another edition
4.0
This book would be a good read for a serious Harry Potter fan. It analyzes each of the books in the series, by small groups of chapters. Reading it made me realize I remember the movies much better than the books so a reread is in order. I enjoyed it.
abstract_amber77's review against another edition
4.0
This professor explains Rowling's writing method, from her foreshadowing and symbolism, to her play on words. He really picks out the details that I missed when reading it on my own.
thesydda's review against another edition
5.0
A truly excellent book! It's an easy read, but really makes rereading Harry Potter even more fun. The author points out many things I probably would not have seen on my own. I've heard he teaches a class on Harry Potter - I only wish I could take it!
Having only read this book by this author, I would, without question, snatch up his other books.
If you are a Harry Potter fan, don't miss this book!
Having only read this book by this author, I would, without question, snatch up his other books.
If you are a Harry Potter fan, don't miss this book!
agregory's review against another edition
3.0
I learned a lot of things I didn't know about the series before, but overall I felt like this author was trying a little too hard to find symbolism and foreshadowing in every word. A bit too much "overthink" as he calls it. But when he wasn't overthinking it, it was interesting, and the literary analysis didn't make me like the series any less. I do like his thoughts about why we re-read books we love.
whiteowl's review against another edition
2.0
I've had this on my to read list for a few years so finally decided to get it. I am not glad I did. I thought it would be much more interesting and look into the background to spells and other Rowling made up words and the origins of them etc. Nothing jumped out at me as me having missed it when I've read the books or much being really "hidden". There's obviously hints at things to come which mean nothing to begin with but do upon re-reading but they're not really hidden, they just don't have context yet. So much talk about foreshadowing, but without it things wouldn't make sense later on in the books so it's necessary, however Thomas makes it seem like it's cleverly hidden, whereas I just see it as good writing.
I had so many issues with the book. I only made note of some of them.
On page 12 he says to think about Griphook's lying about the sword... "but to his stealing the sword for himself". Technically he didn't steal the sword. Harry said he could have it, Griphook just took it earlier than Harry was hoping, and that's what you get for making a deal with a goblin, he was forewarned.
On page 22 he talks about The Draught of the Living Death sounding like/being what Snape gives Dumbledore after the curse from the ring. On page 247, and again later, he talks about Snape's role of "stoppering death". But the potion "brings upon its drinker a very powerful sleep that can last indefinitely" as written in Advanced Potion Making, so Snape cannot have given it to Dumbledore as he is not in a deep sleep for HBP.
One major spelling mistake is on page 152, Hufflepuff is written as "Huffelpuff", twice!
On page 261 he says that we may assume that Harry returns to Hogwarts for his final year and resumes playing Quidditch. Rowling has stated that Hermione returned to Hogwarts to complete her seventh year, but Harry and Ron did not. He also mentions that it seems appropriate Harry "put away his childish things" and play no more. Or, it could also be that as he will be hunting for Horcruxes suddenly taking to the air to play some Quidditch is highly dangerous, not that he is putting away "childish" things.
On page 307 it says that Hermione's childhood was Christian while Harry's with the Dursleys was "normal". There is no reference to religion in the books. It is never stated that Hermione is Christian and I don't see there's enough to prove that she is, neither can it be proven that the Dursleys are not.
During the chapters about PoA it says that Pettigrew "ratted on his friends". That seems an odd choice of words to me. He revealed where Lily and James where but "ratted on" is as though he told tales on them, which makes it seem very juvenile and takes away the seriousness of what he actually did. (And don't get me started on all the seriously references!)
The bits about Lupin and "case" being referred to were really grating. Perhaps case was referred to with Lupin because he had a suitcase and that's it!
The countdowns being 1-2-3 or 3-2-1 was mentioned a lot but didn't seem to have a conclusion. And was irritating. I would assume that the countdowns in the book were referred to that way because that's the way most countdowns are done, from 3 to 1 or 1 to 3!
A lot of focus on right and left and it just seemed like he was reading way too much into it. He found it strange that it was Malfoy's right arm that was injured as that is the "good" side. Maybe it was simply because he is right handed so that is the arm that would cause the most disruption to be injured. The same as Harry's injured arm being his right; assuming he is right handed he would have reached out for the snitch with his dominant hand. It seems to be he read way too much into a lot of things in the books.
Stop referring to Dumbledore as "Dumby"! Just no!
The general writing style of this book I did not like. I would have expected more from somebody who teaches literature. There were many spelling and grammatical errors and his use of "what all" several times just reads awfully. He seemed to jump around a lot as well, it was not neat and orderly or consistent in the way the chapters were discussed. There were a lot of mentions of things with reference to more about them coming later and never seeming to.
I thought that there were too many references to other works, some of which Rowling may never have read and may not have taken inspiration from. I didn't read this book to be told to read others that I would like (how does he know?) that are not Harry Potter related. The other books looking in Harry Potter I can understand being referenced and perhaps I should have gone with one of those instead.
Overall I was very disappointed in this book. It just didn't give me what I thought it was going to and I'm now wary of others of the sort as I don't want to read the same again.
I had so many issues with the book. I only made note of some of them.
On page 12 he says to think about Griphook's lying about the sword... "but to his stealing the sword for himself". Technically he didn't steal the sword. Harry said he could have it, Griphook just took it earlier than Harry was hoping, and that's what you get for making a deal with a goblin, he was forewarned.
On page 22 he talks about The Draught of the Living Death sounding like/being what Snape gives Dumbledore after the curse from the ring. On page 247, and again later, he talks about Snape's role of "stoppering death". But the potion "brings upon its drinker a very powerful sleep that can last indefinitely" as written in Advanced Potion Making, so Snape cannot have given it to Dumbledore as he is not in a deep sleep for HBP.
One major spelling mistake is on page 152, Hufflepuff is written as "Huffelpuff", twice!
On page 261 he says that we may assume that Harry returns to Hogwarts for his final year and resumes playing Quidditch. Rowling has stated that Hermione returned to Hogwarts to complete her seventh year, but Harry and Ron did not. He also mentions that it seems appropriate Harry "put away his childish things" and play no more. Or, it could also be that as he will be hunting for Horcruxes suddenly taking to the air to play some Quidditch is highly dangerous, not that he is putting away "childish" things.
On page 307 it says that Hermione's childhood was Christian while Harry's with the Dursleys was "normal". There is no reference to religion in the books. It is never stated that Hermione is Christian and I don't see there's enough to prove that she is, neither can it be proven that the Dursleys are not.
During the chapters about PoA it says that Pettigrew "ratted on his friends". That seems an odd choice of words to me. He revealed where Lily and James where but "ratted on" is as though he told tales on them, which makes it seem very juvenile and takes away the seriousness of what he actually did. (And don't get me started on all the seriously references!)
The bits about Lupin and "case" being referred to were really grating. Perhaps case was referred to with Lupin because he had a suitcase and that's it!
The countdowns being 1-2-3 or 3-2-1 was mentioned a lot but didn't seem to have a conclusion. And was irritating. I would assume that the countdowns in the book were referred to that way because that's the way most countdowns are done, from 3 to 1 or 1 to 3!
A lot of focus on right and left and it just seemed like he was reading way too much into it. He found it strange that it was Malfoy's right arm that was injured as that is the "good" side. Maybe it was simply because he is right handed so that is the arm that would cause the most disruption to be injured. The same as Harry's injured arm being his right; assuming he is right handed he would have reached out for the snitch with his dominant hand. It seems to be he read way too much into a lot of things in the books.
Stop referring to Dumbledore as "Dumby"! Just no!
The general writing style of this book I did not like. I would have expected more from somebody who teaches literature. There were many spelling and grammatical errors and his use of "what all" several times just reads awfully. He seemed to jump around a lot as well, it was not neat and orderly or consistent in the way the chapters were discussed. There were a lot of mentions of things with reference to more about them coming later and never seeming to.
I thought that there were too many references to other works, some of which Rowling may never have read and may not have taken inspiration from. I didn't read this book to be told to read others that I would like (how does he know?) that are not Harry Potter related. The other books looking in Harry Potter I can understand being referenced and perhaps I should have gone with one of those instead.
Overall I was very disappointed in this book. It just didn't give me what I thought it was going to and I'm now wary of others of the sort as I don't want to read the same again.
shannonmcewen's review against another edition
3.0
This is a good book for people who are re-reading Potter, or any book, for the first time. It gives a first-time re-reader a lot of things to think about and look for. It's very elementary, however, for those of us who have been re-reading Potter for years, and who are experienced re-readers of literary fiction.
The conversational tone of the writing is nice to an extent but does become distracting in places; Thomas uses some weird colloquialisms ("what all" is a particularly annoying one) at times.
There are for sure places where I feel he completely misses the point (a discussion about Sirius Black and the lengthy Marauders reveal in book three springs immediately to mind), but that's sort of the fun of a book like this -- my own disagreement with the scholar. I also feel that he makes a lot of statements and then sort of backs off of them -- like there are a lot of unfinished thoughts. But perhaps that's intentional and he felt like offering his own interpretation to the work wasn't really what he was trying to accomplish with this book.
One thing that did annoy though was his failure to include actual quotes from other pieces of literature he was referencing, instead suggesting over and over that his reader go check out those works to see what he's talking about. I get what he's trying to do (he's a teacher, for heaven's sake) -- he wants us all to read further and learn something. But seriously, no amount of cajoling or half-truths about William Faulkner will ever get me to read William Faulkner again. And I'm far too lazy to seek out unfamiliar poetry. So just give us a few lines here and there. Without these, it weakens what Thomas is trying to do.
And finally, his use of "Dumby" as a nickname for Dumbledore made me feel super stabby.
The conversational tone of the writing is nice to an extent but does become distracting in places; Thomas uses some weird colloquialisms ("what all" is a particularly annoying one) at times.
There are for sure places where I feel he completely misses the point (a discussion about Sirius Black and the lengthy Marauders reveal in book three springs immediately to mind), but that's sort of the fun of a book like this -- my own disagreement with the scholar. I also feel that he makes a lot of statements and then sort of backs off of them -- like there are a lot of unfinished thoughts. But perhaps that's intentional and he felt like offering his own interpretation to the work wasn't really what he was trying to accomplish with this book.
One thing that did annoy though was his failure to include actual quotes from other pieces of literature he was referencing, instead suggesting over and over that his reader go check out those works to see what he's talking about. I get what he's trying to do (he's a teacher, for heaven's sake) -- he wants us all to read further and learn something. But seriously, no amount of cajoling or half-truths about William Faulkner will ever get me to read William Faulkner again. And I'm far too lazy to seek out unfamiliar poetry. So just give us a few lines here and there. Without these, it weakens what Thomas is trying to do.
And finally, his use of "Dumby" as a nickname for Dumbledore made me feel super stabby.
thecrafter's review
1.0
This book contained multiple grammar and spelling errors. The content was not much better; many of the analyses (70%) were completely ridiculous and could have only found by purposely digging for them.
More...