Sorry, might be a weird ask, but how do you go about writing story analysis/meta? I'm familiar with storytelling concepts and I like reading analysis, but it's hard for me to write interpretations of my own. When its anything other than surface level 'in your face' text I start reading other analysis to point me in the right direction. But I would like to come to these conclusions on my own. What is your process in writing these?
This is such an interesting question, and also really hard to answer.
For what it's worth, I had an AP teacher who was very good at teaching this, and then I got a four year degree in English aka learning how to read and then write about it. But that's means I've been pretty good at it for a long time, and the process by which I learned isn't necessarily super accessible.
I think you're probably on the right track here to start: you've familiarized yourself with concept, you know stuff is there, and you seek out reading about it.
There's also a lot of practice involved. Starting with writing analysis of even surface level things that you have noticed will help you articulate your thoughts clearly so you can practice thinking and writing that way, which will help your brain go down those pathways more habitually and instinctively.
(You don't have to post them online if you're embarrassed or anything, but people are capable of missing some pretty major themes in works, so people might find it a lot more insightful than you think)
Reading widely also helps, and bringing your own knowledge of stuff outside of the particular thing you're reading can also help! People who really know music can write about that in film and TV shows, for instance. One of my professors in college mentioned a prior student who had written about Dracula with the structure of a soccer game in mind (because apparently Stoker was a big fan of soccer? IDK), which he thought was super interesting. I didn't read it, so I dunno how tortured it was, but it's not something I ever would have noticed.
This is also part of why I like getting asks: people will ask me about something I hadn't really considered before and then have to think about it. It's so helpful and fun.
Another thing to consider is to pause and think about if you've seen something similar to a particular trope/plot device/moment in what you're reading, either in the same work or elsewhere, and like...make a Venn diagram or something about the similarities and differences, and think about why they're different and how they're different. So much of reading like a critic is looking for patterns.
Which is also what this is: it's called "reading as a critic." There are levels to reading....reading as a reader, reading as a critic, reading as a writer. Usually they build on each other! So perhaps looking up advice on how to read as a critic might even be more helpful than anything I have to offer.