I'm reading John Granger's Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader. As the title indicates, the book is not for the casual book consumer. It is for serious readers who like to study literary themes and symbolism and re-read good books over and over.

According to Granger, the five keys to unlocking Harry Potter, understanding what JKR is trying to accomplish and, more importantly, figuring out what must happen in Deathly Hallows are:

1) JKR's use of narrative misdirection;
2) JKR's use of literary alchemy;
3) the hero's journey;
4) the series' postmodern themes; and
5) JKR's use of traditional symbolism.

I can't put the book down. To a "serious reader" and Harry Potter lover, it's good stuff.

Sometime very soon I'll post a review of the book and flesh out the keys. In the meantime, visit Granger's blog, Hogwarts Professor. Granger also is the author of Looking for God in Harry Potter. Great resource for Christian HP fans. I cited Granger's work in a two-part HP book review.

Check out my post about Harry Potter-related books. I highly recommend the first three.

Feel free to list and discuss any HP-related books you've read.

An engaging book is one with a good plot, the vehicle than drives the story. Sometimes the author introduces an implausible or conveniently coincidental element to a story, and we're willing to suspend our disbelief and accept the premise.

I love the Harry Potter books obviously, but one plot hole I can't come to terms with is that Albus Dumbledore did not tell young Harry nor his own colleagues, it seems, about the true identity of Lord Voldemort until after the chamber of secret horrors in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Lord Voldemort was and is Tom Riddle, son of witch Merope Gaunt and Muggle Tom Riddle. He's a half-blood wizard who hates Muggles and other half-bloods, the wizard version of Adolph Hitler, the man who tried to wipe out an entire race.

In Chamber of Secrets, Lucius Malfoy slips Riddle's cursed diary into Ginny Weasely's cauldron. We found out in Half-Blood Prince that the diary also was a horcrux. If only the wizarding world, including Harry, had known that Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle, a whole lot of problems would have been avoided (pardon the passive voice; it flowed better).

Ginny would have recognized the name and tossed the diary or turned it in to Dumbledore. That would have ended the diary-horcrux/chamber of secrets horror before it started. If she had no clue who Riddle was, then her father definitely would have known. More important, Dumbledore, at the very least, should have told Harry Voldemort's real name.

If Ginny, Mr. Weasely, Harry, and others had known all about Riddle, Chamber of Secrets would be a different story from the one J.K. Rowling wanted to tell. In that regard, I dig what she was trying to do. Still…

I can suspend disbelief about a lot of things in the HP series, but that plot problem is too humongous to ignore. It is too implausible to believe that Dumbledore, for whatever reason, chose not to tell/warn people that Riddle and Voldemort were one in the same.

We know that bad things have happened to wizards who traveled through time. Some have ended up killing their past or future selves, we were told.

How many times did Hermione say that she and Harry "couldn't be seen" by anyone when they traveled to the past to save Sirus and Buckbeak in Prisoner of Azkaban? Before she and Harry traveled back, Dumbledore reiterated the point: "You know the rules, Ms. Granger. You must not be seen."

It hadn't occurred to me until I listened to the audio book for the nth time that Hermione not only did the very thing people traveling through time are warned against, she did so with the Ministry of Magic's blessing! Hermione appealed to Professor McGonagall for a Time Turner so she could increase her course load, and McGonagall managed to convince the Ministry that Hermione would use it responsibly. So with the TT, she'd attend a 9 a.m. class, and then travel back in time to attend another 9 a.m. class.

Hermione was seen. Didn't that violate some kind of rule? Obviously, the Ministry and McGonagall (and Dumbledore) thought it was OK. If that's the case, why the repeated warnings when rescuing Sirius and Buckbeak? Was it because there were two of them?

Color me confused. Perhaps I missed something in the book.

Bright Idea

Travis Prinzi has given me a good idea for a series. He's listening to the Harry Potter audio books and noticing things he didn't notice while reading the books the first or second (or third?) time around.

I, too, have the audio books, and I'm not embarrased to say I've listened to all six books more times than I can count. And like Travis, I've noticed certain things while listening that I overlooked or never put much thought into while reading.

Travis lists several plot points and plot holes in Chamber of Secrets. For instance, why didn't the basilisk eat the petrified students if he/she/it was so hungry, as Tom Riddle claimed? Of course, petrified students were essential to the plot, and had the students been eaten, Hogwarts surely would have closed. With a school devoid of students, lessening the dramatic tension and "who's next" suspense, Chamber of Secrets as J.K Rowling envisioned it wouldn't exist.

Hating the Dursleys

While I can suspend my disbelief for the sake of the story, some things drive me crazy. For example, remember in Chamber of Secrets when Ernie McMillan and Hannah Abbott were talking about Harry behind his back, speculating whether he was the heir of Slytherin and petrifying students? When Harry stepped out of the shadows and asked the whereabouts of Justin Finch Fletchly, Ernie offered as proof of Harry's guilt his hatred for "those Muggles" he lives with. Harry said something like, "It's impossible to live with the Dursely's and not hate them," and walked away.

Actually, that bothered me when I read the book. Why didn't he tell the group what those Muggles did to him all his life to earn that hatred? The ill treatment? The bullying? The lies? Harry wouldn't have to say much to make a good case for hating the Dursleys. Any reasonable person growing up being treated as badly as Harry would hate them.

The only reason I can think of why Rowling would write the scene that way is for Harry to remain the persecuted, ostracized orphan boy misunderstood by his peers and adults alike. This may not be a plot hole per se, but it's one of those things that bother me.

That was fun. Thanks, Travis! In my next post, I'll blog about a couple of irritating plot holes in Prisoner of Azkaban.

Update (4/6) — How did I fail to mention this GIGANTIC plot point: The whole "Tom Riddle's diary" mess could have been avoided if only Dumbledore had told Harry and everyone else that Tom Riddle is/was Lord Voldemort. Had Dumbledore shared this info with the wizarding community, Ginny would not have been fooled by the diary and subsequently possessed by Voldemort, and Harry would not have been lured in by it.

But, of course, the plot of Chamber of Secrets revolves around Tom Riddle's diary, doesn't it? If everyone knew who Riddle was, there would be no Chamber of Secrets as Rowling wrote it.

Wow. I miss writing on this blog. So much has happened between this and the last entry. Scholastic issued a release date for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (July 21, 2007). U.K. and U.S. cover art and book jacket summaries are out. (Watch the MSNBC video with American editor Arthur Levine.) The Harry Potter bloggers are doing a great job analyzing the meaning of "deathly hallows" and what clues the cover art and summaries reveal. So much…stuff!

If anyone is still checking this blog, I recommend visiting sites like Sword of Gryffindor, and listen to Travis Prinzi's wonderful podcast while you're there. Head-Christian-HP-blogger-in-charge John Granger has new books out, including Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader, which I can't wait to read.

I have lots of ideas and theories about Deathly Hallows. I heard a fantastic theory on the Leaky Cauldron podcast about Harry traveling back in time to Godric's Hollow that I love, and I'll develop it later. Also see Wikipedia's entry on Deathly Hallows.

Until I get my thing together over here (and I'm not alone!), browse the blogroll and check out the sites (and the sights!).