I was so very, very sceptical about the possibilities of this method, but also so very, very desperate, because I am studying probably the hardest law course that ever was - jurisprudence and legal philosophy at Masters level - that I thought I'd give it a whirl. Reading it through, I still felt, like probably many, that some of the claims it made were a tad wild. However, in accordance with my title for the review, I would have to say I seriously think it works. I haven't tried all the exercises - but I have tried the photoreading. And the one book I have tried it with - Law's Empire, by Ronald Dworkin - not an easy read by any stretch of the imagination - is a book that I now feel I know like the back of my hand. It's seriously incredible. I could have happily thrown this book (Law's Empire) out of several windows on many an occasion. But now I love it. Moreover, the other books on my course on which I haven't used the technique, it has to be said that I don't know them as well. Indeed, those books throw me into a state of panic, because I remember very little of them - these are texts that I've read (traditional method) 3 times, and rewritten in my own notes). I don't feel that with the Dworkin's book at all (which, admittedly, has also been read three times in the traditional way, with notes taken). And, moreover, I'm getting the most amazing insights, that I never expected, ever, ever, to see. I have six weeks until my exams - I will now do this process with Joseph Raz's "The morality of freedom" (not an easy read) and Herbert Hart's "Concept of Law" - and will follow this review with an update.