Yeah, I forgot that your edit is regarding just the novelization and not the actual film; novelizations tend to use the surface of the plot of films and, as far as I’m concerned(?), tend to avoid using inferences for specific details from the actual film. For example, I believe the TRoS novel ignores the whole “Rey has low self-esteem” thing, whereas the arc is inferable from the actual film itself.
The subtext of a film is very open to interpretation; you can apply any kind of analytical framework to a movie and come away with interesting results. The Star Wars novelisations, at least to my experience, tend to spell out their themes and subtext a lot more explicitly - so the novelisation ends up being Rae Carson’s interpretation of the film’s subtext. That’s not always going to be the same as my interpretation, or yours, or someone else’s. And that’s fine! That’s what’s interesting about analysing fiction.
That said, however, I do think there are more accurate and less accurate interpretations of what subtext the filmmakers were intending to convey. That’s why analytical essays search through texts for explicit evidence that supports their interpretations and assertions. I’m trying not to stray too far from what I believe are Carson’s intended themes and subtext, unless I think it could be changed to something that’s better supported by the text.
TROS is a bit scattershot (which is understandable, given its writing and production process), and Carson has done her best to bring all of the bits in line with the ST’s overall thematic trajectory. I’m just trying to strengthen those attempts, basically.