Cool. This sort of critical deconstruction always makes me happy (excruciating detail and all!), because I feel there's often as much if not more to learn from a flawed work than one that generally holds together, if only due to internal contrasts between the bits that mostly work and the bits that don't. Obviously there are lots of things to learn from classics and works that you consider great, but the lessons are different ones - and structure, in particular, is often most in evidence when the author doesn't quite manage to make everything work.

Also, I personally find the "I can do better than *that*!" reaction to be a more effective motivator than thinking, "I loved that, and would never try to pull off that kind of high-wire act in a million years."