>>19
Look, nobody knows that. If you've actually read the book, and then if you've read that particular essay, and you didn't immediately recognize it for the paranoid batfucking crazy rambling that it was, you've got a tenth-rate mind. I'm sorry.
>>20
You know what? There *is* depth and subtext in Harry Potter. Hate to be the one to break it to you. That is largely why it is good. Do you know what J.K. Rowling did before she wrote the series? She worked at Amnesty International. I'll let you begin to make the connections from there.
Do you know what is aggravating about /book/? Many of you don't know anything about literature, as an art. (Many do. Don't get me wrong. I'm not making blanket statements here....) Many of you like to read, but you've never given a second thought to the mechanics of story. You have no idea how subtext and symbolism and various hidden meanings are swirling throughout all of your favorite books. That's why you don't think there's depth in Harry Potter. That's why your soporific brain latches onto the first critical analysis of Ender's Game it comes across (even though it is an obviously wrong analysis) and decides it's gospel.
The really disturbing thing about all of this is that many of you behave as though your ignorance is an advantage. Well it's not. Now you know.