|
 |
|
|
|
|
Over-Analyzing, Under-Interpreting, and Somewhere In-Between
by StagedSerendipity
June 21, 2005
Are we being too careful…or too careless?
As an avid fan of Harry Potter and a reader of guide books, editorials, and articles alike; I notice that each is different in their interpretation of the wizarding world.
Most over-analyze…that is, they strive to interpret every little word. They find synonyms and anagrams, they make up rules about coincidences and taking a character’s word for it. And while, half of the time, these conclusions do seemingly fit into J.K. Rowling’s works; it seems to me a bit silly.
Are we really so obsessed that we need to make every piece of the puzzle fit? Okay, I admit, I’ve done the same thing, but it strikes me that not every word is meant to be interpreted.
For example, take what guide books call “running bits”. These are words and references that constantly appear throughout the stories. Some of these are more apparent or true than others. Throughout the first book, we are bombarded by references to music. This can be over-interpreted by saying that, since it is constantly referenced to, music must be important in the course of the story or stories. I agree that music is important in the wizarding world - - it can symbolize happiness. As the books continue to grow and the war looms closer, music is less and less apparent. The wizarding world is in for a dark time.
But, again, maybe Ms. Rowling hasn’t meant for us to interpret every bit. If we over-interpret, we lose the true meaning of the words. Sure, they may fit into our brilliant theories that a reference to spinach in Chamber of Secrets is truly the key to unveiling the Half-Blood Prince. But hasn’t everyone heard of artistic license, creative interpretation, and poetic justice? Sentences can be there just for show, you know. They add detail and depth to a world we would otherwise never know.
Now, I know that if you are as obsessed with Harry Potter as I am, you’re considering my earlier question stupid. Yes, you’re screaming, we’re obsessed, we need to analyze! And in an ideal world, all of our analyzing is correct. But this isn’t an ideal world.
So, over-analyzing is a pit that many of us fall into. We lose our grasp of the plot and turn to hunting for running bits and obscure clues. It can be a downer if it turns out we weren’t right about the whole spinach thing.
But don’t get me wrong. Under-analyzing is another concept that needs to be taken into consideration. After all, bypassing important clues can cost us. If we truly want to interpret, we have to interpret all of the important parts.
For example, take Lucius Malfoy in Chamber of Secrets. We note that Harry sees him in Borgin and Burkes, and that Mr. Malfoy mentions he has some “important business elsewhere”. A reader who over-analyzes may see this and go, “Must…remember…Malfoy’s…business.” A reader who under-analyzes will bypass it and think, “So what? Just a flash of detail here and there.”
In this case, the over-analyzer would be right…Mr. Malfoy’s important business turns out to be at Flourish and Blotts. And it involves slipping a certain diary into the cauldron of a certain eleven-year-old Weasley. Now, when the under-analyzer realizes this, they will immediately smack themselves on the head for neglecting to pick it up. The over-analyzer will now try to work out an anagram of the words ‘important’ and ‘elsewhere’. After all, they must mean something, because the word ‘business’ can stand alone. (Joking, joking. I think…I hope…that no one is that extreme.)
The reader must see my point. Over-analyzing can be just as bad as under-analyzing. You may turn out to have hit the nail on the head…or have missed and hit your thumb. It is sheer guess-and-check. But there is a third aspect that over-analyzers and under-analyzers have not yet considered.
What about in-between-analyzing?
The in-between-analyzer will realize an important clue when they see one, but will not try to stuff their brains with the blatantly obvious filler. An in-between-analyzer is rare; they truly understand the meaning of writing.
Writers will empathize with me. When you write a story, there are pieces that you write so that a reader will pick up more easily. Important details are emphasized through character motivation or descriptive oddities. In a sense, the writer tries to make it so that a clever in-between-analyzer will pick up the important and discard the not-so-important.
How to become a clever in-between-analyzer? Practice. Again, let’s go to the Mr. Malfoy situation. We’ve explored what the under-analyzers and over-analyzers would do when they figure this piece of information. But the in-between-analyzer would question the information further:
So what was the importance and significance of Mr. Malfoy putting the diary in Ginny’s cauldron?
Ad this leads to…
How did Mr. Malfoy get the diary?
Was it his idea, or someone else’s?
Was Mr. Malfoy in direct contact with Voldemort on this ‘mission’?
Did he know exactly how it would play out?
Why Ginny?
As you can see, the in-between-analyzer will assess the important information in order to learn the questions that need to be answered. In reading Harry Potter, asking and answering questions about the information is more important than anything. We can gain even more knowledge just by using logic and inference when reading.
In short, my point is that you need to know how to analyze the Harry Potter series. Realize that things are put there for a reason: whether it is to give you straight-out information, information that needs more assessing, or just for show or detail; the world J.K. Rowling has created is complex and confusing. For anyone other than the in-between-analyzer, anyway. |
User reviews
Review this Editorial |
|
| luv2read |
  |
| 2006.07.03 |
Good article, but I think that you are over-analyzing analzing(although I g...
Read full review |
|
| Long Live the Weasel King! |
|
| 2005.07.26 |
Excellent! No one is more guilty of overanalysing than I, who wrote a two ...
Read full review |
|
| Tia |
|
| 2005.06.30 |
I totally agree that some people over-analyze and others under-analyze and ...
Read full review |
|
| Got Quidditch04 |
|
| 2005.06.29 |
I have also had these thoughts that sometimes, yes, we do tend to over-anal...
Read full review |
|
| Kreacher |
|
| 2005.06.27 |
Well what you wrote was all quite understandable but I think instead of try...
Read full review |
|
| phillips |
|
| 2005.06.26 |
you bring up a good point... but it is better to over analyse and get it wr...
Read full review |
|
| Equus |
|
| 2005.06.24 |
Thank you!
I write *surprise!* and I like your comments. A person can ov...
Read full review |
|
| emeraldphantom |
|
| 2005.06.21 |
I agree that we tend to over-analyze these things. But I also think that an...
Read full review |
|
| orangekai |
|
| 2005.06.21 |
truly, you have a point, however i do stand for overanalizing, why? simple!...
Read full review |
|
|
Back to editorials
|
|
|
|
-->
