Over- analysis

I was in my Children's Literature lecture today. The focus text we had to have read in time for tutorials was Roald Dahl's: "Matilda". Having read the book when i was young, i was familiar with the story. Having watched the movie, too, i thought nothing of the story. Reading the book again, as an adult, admittedly, i was somewhat taken by some of the themes, and some of the things that Dahl presents. However, i reminded myself that the book was simply a children's story.

In the lecture today, the lectureer, a female feminist, focussed on the negative criticism that Dahl recieved, without looking at the positive. In all fairness, she presented what Dahl himself had said in response to the criticism, but there was no direct praise presented, for Dahl's work. After a while of hearing about more than one critic, and what they had to say about "Matilda", i snapped and raised my hand. I was acknowledged and given the floor. I proceeded: "Do any of these critics actually realise just how in- depth they are looking into the themes of "Matilda", and how much they are over- analysing the book?"

The point was acknowledged and even the lectureer agreed that the point was valid. Thus, the lectureer proceeded to read a quote from Dahl himself where he says that he focuses on themes that adults would find vulgar and disrespectful because children themselves have a sort of black humour about them. They are cruel and can have the capacity to see light in something mean. The event of Matilda getting back at her dad, by putting super glue in his hat, and putting a concotion which changes the colour of his hair, he said, is shocking to adults. It has the capacity to teach children to rebel against their parents. However, Dahl underlines that the cruelty is under- played by the language and the humour that he sourrounds the event with.

Studying this subject, i guess it is expected that i will analyse texts, yes even the one's for children. However, all the while, i couldn't help but telepathically yell out, "IT'S JUST A KIDS BOOK!", every time the lectureer read out another negative criticism. It isn't hard to see how such a subject has the ability and capacity to turn people off liking, or reading books again. However, i am happy to say that i haven't faltered as yet. I stood up for Roald Dahl today, and was proud of it too. I think that, for the moment, i am still able to see the fun, and magic in children's books. I can only hope that it remains so. Undoubtedly, if all i will be hearing is the negative criticism, i don't see why i will actually change. I will only enhance my love for such books of childhood fun and adventure.

It is the over- analysis that kills the magic. Sure, it's good to inspect. However, it is one thing to inspect, and another, totally, to critique. By critiquing, one is picking out certain things, and thus, misses the real point of what the book is trying to convey. Watch too closely, and you miss the rest of the fun. Don't watch hard enough and you risk missing the whole thing. I think that's why some people are drawn to reading children's books again, later on in life. Finding the balance is essential. As a child, most of the important things adults pick up on, go right over our heads. Till we're old enough to understand.

Simply analysing, and reading too much into things, (which may be relevant for adults to know), really does take out the fun for adults too. Sure, not everything can be taken for face value, but, isn't this something we all learn when we get into school anyway? Therefore, wouldn't it be fair to allow children to read all sorts of books under the Children's Literature umberella, to allow them the opportunity to be children; These little, care-free, mini- me people, who are innocent and oblivious to descrimination, hatred, and hostility?

Analysis for meaning isn't bad. Although, it's no wonder i don't find the idea of "Critic", a very nice one. The idea that someone believes they know best, and claim to have experiance because of their, seemingly, "openness". Personally, i know that being a critic is a job for some people. However, i don't appreciate what it entails. Particularly, the way some flaunt it, and attempt to look really more sophistocated than others. As i've said before; Even the lowest form of literature, or art, or film, has more meaning, than the criticism that designates it as such. Some people, who over- analyse children's books, either had a very poor childhood, or they're someone who has little to no life at all.