Ron Bancroft ought to be ashamed of his I-haven’t-read-the-book-but-I-saw-the-movie approach to literary analysis.

In his recent column describing his family outing to the movies (“A young wizard and his friends become part of the family” Nov. 30), he informs us that he has not read “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” and then proceeds to draw conclusions about author J.K. Rowling’s characterization, plotting and influences.

While the movie on the main is remarkably faithful to its source, it is still layers removed in its interpretation from Rowling’s book.

Anyone who’s ever read a book and then seen a movie knows that they are two different things.

A film’s creators necessarily make choices in adapting a story told with words to one told with light and sound, and in doing so put their own understanding of a text before their audience.

Mr. Bancroft needs to direct his analysis toward the work at hand, not the one he has no experience with.

At several points in his column he references “The Lord of the Rings.”

One wonders, then, if he is talking about J.R.R. Tolkien’s books or Peter Jackson’s movies?