Eske Esquire wrote:
People do the same sort of overanalysis with the Harry Potter books, too. I don't quite get the folks that read only the Hunger Games and Harry Potter, then mine for depth and nuance in them like they're writing a thesis. They're fine enough books, but poring over them is at odds with their nature.
I don't necessarily disagree but I'd rank someone who tries to act smart by tearing down children's literature a bit lower than someone who over-analyzed children's literature. Someone who gets way
into Harry Potter, be it analyzing themes in the book or trying to find a connection (beyond bad pseudo-latin) between the spells or chronicling the mythology or even writing fan fic is trying to extend a pleasant experience that ended in its official form. Even if I'm not into Harry Potter, I can "get" that and it's not hurting anything even if I personally find some of the efforts silly. Someone who is trying to tear down popular children's (or tween/teen) literature/film is just exercising self-aggrandizement by going after a ridiculously easy target. It's a lot harder to respect that. I mean, holy sh
it, really? You managed to find plot holes in Harry Potter or Twilight or The Hunger Games? You must be a genius.