Sometimes a bunny is just a bunny

Recently, there's been a discussion of Margaret Wise Brown's book Goodnight Moon on one of the children's literature listservs I read. Nothing unusual... after all, it's a classic book and is bound to be talked about from time to time.

But, this discussion has started to get into issues involving incest, gender, sexuality and the domination of the older female bunny... and at this point, I've got to wonder: is it okay for Goodnight Moon to just be about a bunny that says good night to the objects in their room? Does it have to be about anything more than that? Is it about anything more than that?

My guess is no, it probably isn't. I appreciate book analysis as much as the next person, but sometimes I think we tend to over-analyze, especially in the field of children's books. And I think when that happens, some of the sweet innocence of a book can get lost.

For example, after I read the Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, I was struck by the fact that he referred to one of the ghouls as the 33rd President of the United States. It was very specific, and I wondered what he meant by it. So, I went online and found many brilliant theories that it was a reference to Truman's (the 33rd President) ghoulish decision to drop the atomic bomb.

Made sense. But then, I asked Neil Gaiman about it and he said that wasn't the case at all. The real reason was that he wanted to use a president from that era and he decided that FDR was just too cool to turn into a ghoul. He thought about Eisenhower, but in the end, thought the number 33 sounded better than the number 34, and number 33 turned out to be Truman. There's nothing more to it than that.

Moral: sometimes things are really that simple. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Is it okay to let a bunny just be a bunny?

What book do you think has been over-analyzed?

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?

Albus Dumbledore.

According to a recent article in the Guardian, J.K. Rowling said the longtime Hogwarts headmaster is the character from her books that she'd most like to have dinner with. I can certainly understand that. Who wouldn't enjoy a nice feast with Dumbledore accompanied by a glass of oak-matured mead?

Wizards Wireless asked the opposite question in 2007: which character would you be least interested in dining with? My readers were interested in avoiding a companion that might turn them into entrees: Aragog finished in the clear lead.

How about you? Which Harry Potter character would you like to dine with? (Personally, I'd skip all the fictional characters in favor of a meal with the author herself).