I have no idea. I don't keep count. While waiting for the next book in the series to come out (starting with Order of the Phoenix), I reread the others while waiting, trying to predict what would happen next. Other times, I've read just for enjoyment, or just skimmed to read all the scenes with a particular character, or to reread a favorite scene. This is the first (or second?) time I've reread them all very carefully (as if it were the first time) since Deathly Hallows came out.
Stysfutty wrote:Ya i guess, but dont you think there is a time when u know everything about the person and its time to take the next step at that point?
Perhaps. But I'm not there with Harry Potter yet. I find that I get something different out of good books each time I read them, because even if they are the same, I am not the same person I was the last time I read it. And with the Harry Potter books especially, J.K. Rowling wove her plot so tightly, I still find things that I didn't notice before, such as:
- In Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius seems to break into the castle only during the full moon (JKR is a bit vague on her timeline, but Lupin isn't mentioned with the other teachers, and it's always right around the time that he's ill). This made me realize that Sirius must know Lupin is a professor, and in turn, that made me realize how much Dumbledore trusts Lupin -- he knew the DADA position was cursed and Lupin could only teach it one year, and he chose Lupin specifically that year hoping he'd help protect Harry against Black.
- I've always found Goblet of Fire the least satisfying, and always felt as if something were left unfinished at the end. This time, I realized it's because there's a Chekhov's Gun in the first chapter that never goes off. Voldemort talks about "one more murder, and my way to Harry Potter is clear," and yet by the end of the book, you never find out which murder was predicted by Voldemort in that scene (the two that occur after that scene were decided at a later time, only after certain events forced the issue).
- This time reading through, as an amateur writer, I've noticed how uneven the pacing of Philosopher's Stone is, and re-noticed how overly wordy Goblet of Fire is. I've also noticed how overly Harry-centric the viewpoint can be at times; for example, in Goblet of Fire, when setting up the tents, Arthur turns to Harry, who's never been camping, because he was raised by Muggles -- but so was Hermione, who (as we find out in Deathly Hallows), has been camping a lot! That was a bit sexist of Arthur, but since Hermione doesn't show any greater prowess in setting up the tent than someone who's never seen one before, Rowling probably hadn't decided that Hermione was going to have camping experience yet. It's amazing to find little instances of sexism even in a series with some of the strongest female characters I've seen.
- I found new evidence that I'd overlooked in Chamber of Secrets -- we see Hagrid's first rooster soon after it was killed, and he mentions having seen the culprit! The clue is so wonderfully disguised, it's really incredible. I really hope J.K. Rowling goes back to writing true mystery novels.